H. Rept. 109-74 - 109th Congress (2005-2006)
May 05, 2005, As Reported by the Judiciary Committee

Report text available as:

Formatting necessary for an accurate reading of this legislative text may be shown by tags (e.g., <DELETED> or <BOLD>) or may be missing from this TXT display. For complete and accurate display of this text, see the PDF.




House Report 109-74 - GANG DETERRENCE AND COMMUNITY PROTECTION ACT OF 2005




[House Report 109-74]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office]



109th Congress                                                   Report
                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
 1st Session                                                     109-74

======================================================================
 
          GANG DETERRENCE AND COMMUNITY PROTECTION ACT OF 2005

                                _______
                                

  May 5, 2005.--Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the 
              State of the Union and ordered to be printed

                                _______
                                

 Mr. Sensenbrenner, from the Committee on the Judiciary, submitted the 
                               following

                              R E P O R T

                             together with

                            DISSENTING VIEWS

                        [To accompany H.R. 1279]

      [Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office]

  The Committee on the Judiciary, to whom was referred the bill 
(H.R. 1279) to amend title 18, United States Code, to reduce 
violent gang crime and protect law-abiding citizens and 
communities from violent criminals, and for other purposes, 
having considered the same, reports favorably thereon with an 
amendment and recommends that the bill as amended do pass.

                                CONTENTS

                                                                   Page
The Amendment....................................................     2
Purpose and Summary..............................................     9
Background and Need for the Legislation..........................     9
Hearings.........................................................    17
Committee Consideration..........................................    18
Vote of the Committee............................................    18
Committee Oversight Findings.....................................    22
New Budget Authority and Tax Expenditures........................    22
Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate........................    22
Performance Goals and Objectives.................................    25
Constitutional Authority Statement...............................    25
Section-by-Section Analysis and Discussion.......................    25
Changes in Existing Law Made by the Bill, as Reported............    27
Markup Transcript................................................    48
Dissenting Views.................................................   279

                             The Amendment

  The amendment is as follows:
  Strike all after the enacting clause and insert the 
following:

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

  This Act may be cited as the ``Gang Deterrence and Community 
Protection Act of 2005''.

   TITLE I--CRIMINAL LAW REFORMS AND ENHANCED PENALTIES TO DETER AND 
  PUNISH ILLEGAL STREET GANG ACTIVITY AND RELATED CRIMINAL LAW REFORMS

SEC. 101. REVISION AND EXTENSION OF PENALTIES RELATED TO CRIMINAL 
                    STREET GANG ACTIVITY.

  (a) In General.--Chapter 26 of title 18, United States Code, is 
amended to read as follows:

                  ``CHAPTER 26--CRIMINAL STREET GANGS

``Sec.
``521. Criminal street gang prosecutions.

``Sec. 521. Criminal street gang prosecutions

  ``(a) Street Gang Crime.--Whoever commits, or conspires, threatens or 
attempts to commit, a gang crime for the purpose of furthering the 
activities of a criminal street gang, or gaining entrance to or 
maintaining or increasing position in such a gang, shall, in addition 
to being subject to a fine under this title--
          ``(1) if the gang crime results in the death of any person, 
        be sentenced to death or life in prison;
          ``(2) if the gang crime is kidnapping, aggravated sexual 
        abuse, or maiming, be imprisoned for life or any term of years 
        not less than 30;
          ``(3) if the gang crime is assault resulting in serious 
        bodily injury (as defined in section 1365), be imprisoned for 
        life or any term of years not less than 20; and
          ``(4) in any other case, be imprisoned for life or for any 
        term of years not less than 10.
  ``(b) Forfeiture.--
          ``(1) In general.--The court, in imposing sentence on any 
        person convicted of a violation of this section, shall order, 
        in addition to any other sentence imposed and irrespective of 
        any provision of State law, that such person shall forfeit to 
        the United States such person's interest in--
                  ``(A) any property used, or intended to be used, in 
                any manner or part, to commit, or to facilitate the 
                commission of, the violation; and
                  ``(B) any property constituting, or derived from, any 
                proceeds the person obtained, directly or indirectly, 
                as a result of the violation.
          ``(2) Application of controlled substances act.--Subsections 
        (b), (c), (e), (f), (g), (h), (i), (j), (k), (l), (m), (n), 
        (o), and (p) of section 413 of the Controlled Substances Act 
        (21 U.S.C. 853) shall apply to a forfeiture under this section 
        as though it were a forfeiture under that section.
  ``(c) Definitions.--The following definitions apply in this section:
          ``(1) Criminal street gang.--The term `criminal street gang' 
        means a formal or informal group or association of 3 or more 
        individuals, who commit 2 or more gang crimes (one of which is 
        a crime of violence other than an offense punishable under 
        subparagraphs (A), (B), or (C) of section 401(b)(1) of the 
        Controlled Substances Act), in 2 or more separate criminal 
        episodes, in relation to the group or association, if any of 
        the activities of the criminal street gang affects interstate 
        or foreign commerce.
          ``(2) Gang crime.--The term `gang crime' means conduct 
        constituting any Federal or State crime, punishable by 
        imprisonment for more than one year, in any of the following 
        categories:
                  ``(A) A crime of violence.
                  ``(B) A crime involving obstruction of justice, 
                tampering with or retaliating against a witness, 
                victim, or informant, or burglary.
                  ``(C) A crime involving the manufacturing, importing, 
                distributing, possessing with intent to distribute, or 
                otherwise dealing in a controlled substance or listed 
                chemical (as those terms are defined in section 102 of 
                the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 802)).
                  ``(D) Any conduct punishable under section 844 
                (relating to explosive materials), subsection (a)(1), 
                (d), (g)(1) (where the underlying conviction is a 
                violent felony (as defined in section 924(e)(2)(B) of 
                this title) or is a serious drug offense (as defined in 
                section 924(e)(2)(A))), (g)(2), (g)(3), (g)(4), (g)(5), 
                (g)(8), (g)(9), (i), (j), (k), (n), (o), (p), (q), (u), 
                or (x) of section 922 (relating to unlawful acts), or 
                subsection (b), (c), (g), (h), (k), (l), (m), or (n) of 
                section 924 (relating to penalties), section 930 
                (relating to possession of firearms and dangerous 
                weapons in Federal facilities), section 931 (relating 
                to purchase, ownership, or possession of body armor by 
                violent felons), sections 1028 and 1029 (relating to 
                fraud and related activity in connection with 
                identification documents or access devices), section 
                1952 (relating to interstate and foreign travel or 
                transportation in aid of racketeering enterprises), 
                section 1956 (relating to the laundering of monetary 
                instruments), section 1957 (relating to engaging in 
                monetary transactions in property derived from 
                specified unlawful activity), or sections 2312 through 
                2315 (relating to interstate transportation of stolen 
                motor vehicles or stolen property).
                  ``(E) Any conduct punishable under section 274 
                (relating to bringing in and harboring certain aliens), 
                section 277 (relating to aiding or assisting certain 
                aliens to enter the United States), or section 278 
                (relating to importation of alien for immoral purpose) 
                of the Immigration and Nationality Act.
          ``(3) Aggravated sexual abuse.--The term `aggravated sexual 
        abuse' means an offense that, if committed in the special 
        maritime and territorial jurisdiction would be an offense under 
        section 2241(a).
          ``(4) State.--The term `State' means each of the several 
        States of the United States, the District of Columbia, and any 
        commonwealth, territory, or possession of the United States.''.
  (b) Amendment Relating to Priority of Forfeiture Over Orders for 
Restitution.--Section 3663(c)(4) of title 18, United States Code, is 
amended by striking ``chapter 46 or chapter 96 of this title'' and 
inserting ``section 521, under chapter 46 or 96,''.
  (c) Money Laundering.--Section 1956(c)(7)(D) of title 18, United 
States Code, is amended by inserting ``, section 521 (relating to 
criminal street gang prosecutions)'' before ``, section 541''.

SEC. 102. INCREASED PENALTIES FOR INTERSTATE AND FOREIGN TRAVEL OR 
                    TRANSPORTATION IN AID OF RACKETEERING.

  (a) Substantive Changes to Offense.--Section 1952(a) of title 18, 
United States Code, is amended--
          (1) so that the heading for the section reads as follows:

``Sec. 1952. Interstate or foreign commerce-related aid to 
                    racketeering'';

          (2) by inserting ``(1)'' after ``(a)'';
          (3) by striking ``travels'' and all that follows through 
        ``intent to'' and inserting ``, in or affecting interstate or 
        foreign commerce'';
          (4) by striking ``(1) distribute'' and inserting ``(A) 
        distributes'';
          (5) by striking ``(2) commit'' and inserting ``(B) commits'';
          (6) by striking ``(3) otherwise promote, manage, establish, 
        carry on, or facilitate'' and inserting ``(C) otherwise 
        promotes, manages, establishes, carries on, or facilitates''; 
        and
          (7) by striking ``and thereafter'' and all that follows 
        through the end of the subsection and inserting the following:
``or attempts or conspires to do so, shall be punished as provided in 
paragraph (2).
  ``(2) The punishment for an offense under this subsection is--
          ``(A) in the case of a violation of subparagraph (A) or (C) 
        of paragraph (1), a fine under this title and imprisonment for 
        not less than 5 nor more than 20 years; and
          ``(B) in the case of a violation of subparagraph (B) of 
        paragraph (1), a fine under this title and imprisonment for not 
        less than 10 nor more than 30 years, but if death results the 
        offender shall be sentenced to death, or to imprisonment for 
        any term of years or for life.''.
  (b) Clerical Amendment.--The item relating to section 1952 in the 
table of sections at the beginning of chapter 95 of title 18, United 
States Code, is amended to read as follows:

``1952. Interstate or foreign commerce-related aid to racketeering.''.

SEC. 103. AMENDMENTS RELATING TO VIOLENT CRIME.

  (a) Carjacking.--Section 2119 of title 18, United States Code, is 
amended--
          (1) by striking ``, with the intent to cause death or serious 
        bodily harm'' in the matter preceding paragraph (1);
          (2) by inserting ``or conspires'' after ``attempts'' in the 
        matter preceding paragraph (1);
          (3) by striking ``15'' and inserting ``20'' in paragraph (1); 
        and
          (4) by striking ``or imprisoned not more than 25 years, or 
        both'' and inserting ``and imprisoned not less than 10 years 
        nor more than 30 years'' in paragraph (2).
  (b) Clarification of Illegal Gun Transfers to Commit Drug Trafficking 
Crime or Crimes of Violence.--Section 924(h) of title 18, United States 
Code, is amended to read as follows:
  ``(h) Whoever, in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce, 
knowingly transfers a firearm, knowing or intending that the firearm 
will be used to commit, or possessed in furtherance of, a crime of 
violence or drug trafficking crime, shall be fined under this title and 
imprisoned not less than 5 years nor more than 20 years.''.
  (c) Amendment of Special Sentencing Provision Relating to Limitations 
on Criminal Association.--Section 3582(d) of title 18, United States 
Code, is amended--
          (1) by inserting ``section 521 (criminal street gang 
        prosecutions), in'' after ``felony set forth in'';
          (2) by striking ``specified person, other than his attorney, 
        upon'' and inserting ``specified person upon''; and
          (3) by inserting ``a criminal street gang or'' before ``an 
        illegal enterprise''.
  (d) Conspiracy Penalty.--Section 371 of title 18, United States Code, 
is amended by striking ``five'' and inserting ``20''.

SEC. 104. INCREASED PENALTIES FOR USE OF INTERSTATE COMMERCE FACILITIES 
                    IN THE COMMISSION OF MURDER-FOR-HIRE AND OTHER 
                    FELONY CRIMES OF VIOLENCE.

  (a) In General.--Section 1958 of title 18, United States Code, is 
amended--
          (1) by striking the section heading and inserting the 
        following:

``Sec. 1958. Use of interstate commerce facilities in the commission of 
                    murder-for-hire and other felony crimes of 
                    violence'';

          (2) in subsection (a), by inserting ``or other crime of 
        violence, punishable by imprisonment for more than one year,'' 
        after ``intent that a murder''; and
          (3) in subsection (a), by striking ``shall be fined'' the 
        first place it appears and all that follows through the end of 
        such subsection and inserting the following:
``shall, in addition to being subject to a fine under this title
          ``(1) if the crime of violence or conspiracy results in the 
        death of any person, be sentenced to death or life in prison;
          ``(2) if the crime of violence is kidnapping, aggravated 
        sexual abuse (as defined in section 521), or maiming, or a 
        conspiracy to commit such a crime of violence, be imprisoned 
        for life or any term of years not less than 30;
          ``(3) if the crime of violence is an assault, or a conspiracy 
        to assault, that results in serious bodily injury (as defined 
        in section 1365), be imprisoned for life or any term of years 
        not less than 20; and
          ``(4) in any other case, be imprisoned for life or for any 
        term of years not less than 10.''.
  (b) Clerical Amendment.--The item relating to section 1958 in the 
table of sections at the beginning of chapter 95 of title 18, United 
States Code, is amended to read as follows:

``1958. Use of interstate commerce facilities in the commission of 
murder-for-hire and other felony crimes of violence.''.

SEC. 105. INCREASED PENALTIES FOR VIOLENT CRIMES IN AID OF RACKETEERING 
                    ACTIVITY.

  (a) Offense.--Section 1959(a) of title 18, United States Code, is 
amended to read as follows:
  ``(a) Whoever commits, or conspires, threatens, or attempts to 
commit, a crime of violence for the purpose of furthering the 
activities of an enterprise engaged in racketeering activity, or for 
the purpose of gaining entrance to or maintaining or increasing 
position in, such an enterprise, shall, unless the death penalty is 
otherwise imposed, in addition and consecutive to the punishment 
provided for any other violation of this chapter and in addition to 
being subject to a fine under this title--
          ``(1) if the crime of violence results in the death of any 
        person, be sentenced to death or life in prison;
          ``(2) if the crime of violence is kidnapping, aggravated 
        sexual abuse (as defined in section 521), or maiming, be 
        imprisoned for life or any term of years not less than 30;
          ``(3) if the crime of violence is assault resulting in 
        serious bodily injury (as defined in section 1365), be 
        imprisoned for life or for any term of years not less than 20; 
        and
          ``(4) in any other case, be imprisoned for life or for any 
        term of years not less than 10.''.
  (b) Venue.--Section 1959 of title 18, United States Code, is amended 
by adding at the end the following: --
  ``(c) A prosecution for a violation of this section may be brought 
in--
          ``(1) the judicial district in which the crime of violence 
        occurred; or
          ``(2) any judicial district in which racketeering activity of 
        the enterprise occurred.''.

SEC. 106. MURDER AND OTHER VIOLENT CRIMES COMMITTED DURING AND IN 
                    RELATION TO A DRUG TRAFFICKING CRIME.

  (a) In General.--Part D of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 
841 et seq.) is amended by adding at the end the following:
``murder and other violent crimes committed during and in relation to a 
                         drug trafficking crime
  ``Sec. 424. (a) In General.--Whoever commits, or conspires, or 
attempts to commit, a crime of violence during and in relation to a 
drug trafficking crime, shall, unless the death penalty is otherwise 
imposed, in addition and consecutive to the punishment provided for the 
drug trafficking crime and in addition to being subject to a fine under 
this title--
          ``(1) if the crime of violence results in the death of any 
        person, be sentenced to death or life in prison;
          ``(2) if the crime of violence is kidnapping, aggravated 
        sexual abuse (as defined in section 521), or maiming, be 
        imprisoned for life or any term of years not less than 30;
          ``(3) if the crime of violence is assault resulting in 
        serious bodily injury (as defined in section 1365), be 
        imprisoned for life or any term of years not less than 20; and
          ``(4) in any other case, be imprisoned for life or for any 
        term of years not less than 10.
  ``(b) Venue.--A prosecution for a violation of this section may be 
brought in--
          ``(1) the judicial district in which the murder or other 
        crime of violence occurred; or
          ``(2) any judicial district in which the drug trafficking 
        crime may be prosecuted.
  ``(c) Definitions.--As used in this section--
          ``(1) the term `crime of violence' has the meaning given that 
        term in section 16 of title 18, United States Code; and
          ``(2) the term `drug trafficking crime' has the meaning given 
        that term in section 924(c)(2) of title 18, United States 
        Code.''.
  (b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of contents for the Comprehensive 
Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act of 1970 is amended by inserting 
after the item relating to section 423, the following:

``Sec. 424. Murder and other violent crimes committed during and in 
relation to a drug trafficking crime.''.

SEC. 107. MULTIPLE INTERSTATE MURDER.

  (a) Offense.--Chapter 51 of title 18, United States Code, is amended 
by adding at the end the following new section:

``Sec. 1123. Use of interstate commerce facilities in the commission of 
                    multiple murder

  ``(a) In General.--Whoever travels in or causes another (including 
the intended victim) to travel in interstate or foreign commerce, or 
uses or causes another (including the intended victim) to use the mail 
or any facility of interstate or foreign commerce, or who conspires or 
attempts to do so, with intent that 2 or more intentional homicides be 
committed in violation of the laws of any State or the United States 
shall, in addition to being subject to a fine under this title--
          ``(1) if the offense results in the death of any person, be 
        sentenced to death or life in prison;
          ``(2) if the offense results is assault resulting in serious 
        bodily injury (as defined in section 1365), be imprisoned for 
        life or any term of years not less than 20; and
          ``(3) in any other case, be imprisoned for life or for any 
        term of years not less than 10.
  ``(b) Definition.--The term `State' means each of the several States 
of the United States, the District of Columbia, and any commonwealth, 
territory, or possession of the United States.''.
  (b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections at the beginning of 
chapter 51 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by adding at the 
end the following:

``1123. Use of interstate commerce facilities in the commission of 
multiple murder.''.

SEC. 108. ADDITIONAL RACKETEERING ACTIVITY.

   Section 1961(1) of title 18, United States Code, is amended--
          (1) in subparagraph (A), by inserting ``, or would have been 
        so chargeable if the act or threat had not been committed in 
        Indian country (as defined in section 1151) or in any other 
        area of exclusive Federal jurisdiction,'' after ``chargeable 
        under State law''; and
          (2) in subparagraph (B), by inserting ``section 1123 
        (relating to interstate murder),'' after ``section 1084 
        (relating to the transmission of gambling information),''.

SEC. 109. EXPANSION OF REBUTTABLE PRESUMPTION AGAINST RELEASE OF 
                    PERSONS CHARGED WITH FIREARMS OFFENSES.

  Section 3142 of title 18, United States Code, is amended--
          (1) in subsection (e), in the matter following paragraph (3), 
        by inserting ``an offense under subsection (g)(1) (where the 
        underlying conviction is a drug trafficking crime (as defined 
        in section 924(c))), (g)(2), (g)(4), (g)(5), (g)(8), or (g)(9) 
        of section 922, or a crime of violence,'' after ``that the 
        person committed''; and
          (2) in subsection (g), by amending paragraph (1) to read as 
        follows:
          ``(1) the nature and circumstances of the offense charged, 
        including whether the offense is a crime of violence, or 
        involves a controlled substance, firearm, explosive, or 
        destructive devise;''.

SEC. 110. VENUE IN CAPITAL CASES.

  Section 3235 of title 18, United States Code, is amended to read as 
follows:

``Sec. 3235. Venue in capital cases

  ``(a) The trial for any offense punishable by death shall be held in 
the district where the offense was committed or in any district in 
which the offense began, continued, or was completed.
  ``(b) If the offense, or related conduct, under subsection (a) 
involves activities which affect interstate or foreign commerce, or the 
importation of an object or person into the United States, such offense 
may be prosecuted in any district in which those activities 
occurred.''.

SEC. 111. STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS FOR VIOLENT CRIME.

  (a) In General.--Chapter 213 of title 18, United States Code, is 
amended by adding at the end the following:

``Sec. 3298. Violent crime offenses

  ``No person shall be prosecuted, tried, or punished for any 
noncapital felony, crime of violence, including any racketeering 
activity or gang crime which involves any crime of violence, unless the 
indictment is found or the information is instituted not later than 15 
years after the date on which the alleged violation occurred or the 
continuing offense was completed.''.
  (b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections at the beginning of 
chapter 213 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by adding at 
the end the following:

``3298. Violent crime offenses.''.

SEC. 112. MODIFICATION OF DEFINITION OF CRIME OF VIOLENCE.

  Section 16(b) of title 18, United States Code, is amended to read as 
follows:
          ``(b) any other offense that is an offense punishable by 
        imprisonment for more than one year and that, by its nature, 
        involves a substantial risk that physical force may be used 
        against the person or property of another, or is an offense 
        punishable under subparagraphs (A), (B), or (C) of section 
        401(b)(1) of the Controlled Substances Act.''.

SEC. 113. CLARIFICATION TO HEARSAY EXCEPTION FOR FORFEITURE BY 
                    WRONGDOING.

  Rule 804(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Evidence is amended to read as 
follows:
          ``(6) Forfeiture by wrongdoing.--A statement offered against 
        a party who has engaged or acquiesced in wrongdoing, or who 
        could reasonably foresee such wrongdoing would take place, if 
        the wrongdoing was intended to, and did, procure the 
        unavailability of the declarant as a witness.''.

SEC. 114. INCREASED PENALTIES FOR CRIMINAL USE OF FIREARMS IN CRIMES OF 
                    VIOLENCE AND DRUG TRAFFICKING.

  (a) In General.--Section 924(c) of title 18, United States Code, is 
amended--
          (1) in paragraph (1)(A)--
                  (A) by striking ``shall'' and inserting ``or 
                conspires to commit any of the above acts, shall, for 
                each instance in which the firearm is used, carried, or 
                possessed'';
                  (B) in clause (i), by striking ``5 years'' and 
                inserting ``7 years''; and
                  (C) by striking clauses (ii) and (iii) and inserting 
                the following:
                  ``(ii) if the firearm is discharged, be sentenced to 
                a term of imprisonment of not less than 15 years; and
                  ``(iii) if the firearm is used to wound, injure, or 
                maim another person, be sentenced to a term of 
                imprisonment of not less than 20 years.''; and
          (2) by striking paragraph (4).
  (b) Conforming Amendment.--Section 924 of title 18, United States 
Code, is amended by striking subsection (o).

SEC. 115. TRANSFER OF JUVENILES.

  The 4th undesignated paragraph of section 5032 of title 18, United 
States Code, is amended--
          (1) by striking ``A juvenile'' where it appears at the 
        beginning of the paragraph and inserting ``Except as otherwise 
        provided in this chapter, a juvenile'' ;
          (2) by striking ``as an adult, except that, with'' and 
        inserting ``as an adult. With''; and
          (3) by striking ``However, a juvenile'' and all that follows 
        through ``criminal prosecution.'' at the end of the paragraph 
        and inserting ``The Attorney General may prosecute as an adult 
        a juvenile who is alleged to have committed an act after that 
        juvenile's 16th birthday which if committed by an adult would 
        be a crime of violence that is a felony, an offense described 
        in subsection (d), (i), (j), (k), (o), (p), (q), (u), or (x) of 
        section 922 (relating to unlawful acts), or subsection (b), 
        (c), (g), (h), (k), (l), (m), or (n) of section 924 (relating 
        to penalties), section 930 (relating to possession of firearms 
        and dangerous weapons in Federal facilities), or section 931 
        (relating to purchase, ownership, or possession of body armor 
        by violent felons). The decision whether or not to prosecute a 
        juvenile as an adult under the immediately preceding sentence 
        is not subject to judicial review in any court. In a 
        prosecution under that sentence, the juvenile may be prosecuted 
        and convicted as an adult for any other offense which is 
        properly joined under the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, 
        and may also be convicted as an adult of any lesser included 
        offense.''.

  TITLE II--INCREASED FEDERAL RESOURCES TO DETER AND PREVENT AT-RISK 
                YOUTH FROM JOINING ILLEGAL STREET GANGS

SEC. 201. DESIGNATION OF AND ASSISTANCE FOR ``HIGH INTENSITY'' 
                    INTERSTATE GANG ACTIVITY AREAS.

  (a) Definitions.--In this section the following definitions shall 
apply:
          (1) Governor.--The term ``Governor'' means a Governor of a 
        State or the Mayor of the District of Columbia.
          (2) High intensity interstate gang activity area.--The term 
        ``high intensity interstate gang activity area'' means an area 
        within a State that is designated as a high intensity 
        interstate gang activity area under subsection (b)(1).
          (3) State.--The term ``State'' means a State of the United 
        States, the District of Columbia, and any commonwealth, 
        territory, or possession of the United States.
  (b) High Intensity Interstate Gang Activity Areas.--
          (1) Designation.--The Attorney General, after consultation 
        with the Governors of appropriate States, may designate as high 
        intensity interstate gang activity areas, specific areas that 
        are located within 1 or more States.
          (2) Assistance.--In order to provide Federal assistance to 
        high intensity interstate gang activity areas, the Attorney 
        General shall--
                  (A) establish criminal street gang enforcement teams, 
                consisting of Federal, State, and local law enforcement 
                authorities, for the coordinated investigation, 
                disruption, apprehension, and prosecution of criminal 
                street gangs and offenders in each high intensity 
                interstate gang activity area;
                  (B) direct the reassignment or detailing from any 
                Federal department or agency (subject to the approval 
                of the head of that department or agency, in the case 
                of a department or agency other than the Department of 
                Justice) of personnel to each criminal street gang 
                enforcement team;
                  (C) provide all necessary funding for the operation 
                of the criminal street gang enforcement team in each 
                high intensity interstate gang activity area; and
                  (D) provide all necessary funding for national and 
                regional meetings of criminal street gang enforcement 
                teams, and all other related organizations, as needed, 
                to ensure effective operation of such teams through the 
                sharing of intelligence, best practices and for any 
                other related purpose.
          (3) Composition of criminal street gang enforcement team.--
        The team established pursuant to paragraph (2)(A) shall consist 
        of agents and officers, where feasible, from--
                  (A) the Federal Bureau of Investigation;
                  (B) the Drug Enforcement Administration;
                  (C) the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and 
                Explosives;
                  (D) the United States Marshals Service;
                  (E) the Directorate of Border and Transportation 
                Security of the Department of Homeland Security;
                  (F) the Department of Housing and Urban Development;
                  (G) State and local law enforcement; and
                  (H) Federal, State, and local prosecutors.
          (4) Criteria for designation.--In considering an area for 
        designation as a high intensity interstate gang activity area 
        under this section, the Attorney General shall consider--
                  (A) the current and predicted levels of gang crime 
                activity in the area;
                  (B) the extent to which violent crime in the area 
                appears to be related to criminal street gang activity, 
                such as drug trafficking, murder, robbery, assaults, 
                carjacking, arson, kidnapping, extortion, and other 
                criminal activity;
                  (C) the extent to which State and local law 
                enforcement agencies have committed resources to--
                          (i) respond to the gang crime problem; and
                          (ii) participate in a gang enforcement team;
                  (D) the extent to which a significant increase in the 
                allocation of Federal resources would enhance local 
                response to the gang crime activities in the area; and
                  (E) any other criteria that the Attorney General 
                considers to be appropriate.
  (c) Additional Assistant U.S. Attorneys.--The Attorney General is 
authorized to hire 94 additional Assistant United States attorneys to 
carry out the provisions of this section. Each attorney hired under 
this subsection shall be assigned to a high intensity interstate gang 
activity area.
  (d) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized to be 
appropriated--
          (1) $50,000,000 for each of the fiscal years 2006 through 
        2010 to carry out subsection (b); and
          (2) $7,500,000 for each of the fiscal years 2006 through 2010 
        to carry out subsection (c).

SEC. 202. GRANTS TO STATE AND LOCAL PROSECUTORS TO COMBAT VIOLENT CRIME 
                    AND TO PROTECT WITNESSES AND VICTIMS OF CRIMES.

  (a) In General.--Section 31702 of the Violent Crime Control and Law 
Enforcement Act of 1994 (42 U.S.C. 13862) is amended --
          (1) in paragraph (3), by striking ``and'' at the end;
          (2) in paragraph (4), by striking the period at the end and 
        inserting a semicolon; and
          (3) by adding at the end the following:
          ``(5) to hire additional prosecutors to--
                  ``(A) allow more cases to be prosecuted; and
                  ``(B) reduce backlogs;
          ``(6) to fund technology, equipment, and training for 
        prosecutors and law enforcement in order to increase accurate 
        identification of gang members and violent offenders, and to 
        maintain databases with such information to facilitate 
        coordination among law enforcement and prosecutors; and
          ``(7) to fund technology, equipment, and training for 
        prosecutors to increase the accurate identification and 
        successful prosecution of young violent offenders.''.
  (b) Authorization of Appropriations.--Section 31707 of the Violent 
Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 (42 U.S.C. 13867) is 
amended to read as follows:

``SEC. 31707. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

  ``There are authorized to be appropriated $20,000,000 for each of the 
fiscal years 2006 through 2010 to carry out this subtitle.''.

                          Purpose and Summary

    H.R. 1279, the ``Gang Deterrence and Community Protection 
Act of 2005,'' is a comprehensive bill to increase gang 
prosecutions and prevent gang-related crimes. The bill 
authorizes increased Federal funding to support Federal, State 
and local law enforcement efforts against violent gangs, and to 
coordinate law enforcement agencies' efforts to share 
intelligence and jointly prosecute violent gangs. The act also 
creates new criminal gang prosecution offenses, enhances 
existing gang and violent crime penalties to deter and punish 
illegal street gangs, proposes violent crime reforms needed to 
prosecute effectively gang members, and reforms the Federal 
juvenile justice system to authorize prosecution of 16- and 17-
year-old gang members who commit violent crimes.

                Background and Need for the Legislation

    The problem of gang violence in America is not a new 
one.\1\ Nor is it a problem that is limited to major urban 
areas. Once thought to be only a problem in our Nation's 
largest cities, gangs have invaded smaller communities.\2\ 
According to the Department of Justice there are currently over 
25,000 gangs that are active in more than 3,000 jurisdictions 
in the United States.\3\ Every city with a population of 
250,000 or more has reported gang activity in their 
communities.\4\ Based on the latest available National Youth 
Gang Survey, it is now estimated that there are over 750,000 
gang members.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ U.S. Department of Justice Office of Justice Programs--Office 
of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, Modern-Day Youth Gangs 
(June 2002), available at http://www.ncjrs.org/pdffiles1/ojjdp/
191524.pdf.
    \2\ U.S. Department of Justice Office of Justice Programs--Office 
of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Fact Sheet, National 
Youth Gang Survey Trends from 1996 to 2000 (February 2003), available 
at http://www.west.asu.edu/ckatz/gangclass/Section--1/current.pdf.
    \3\ U.S. Department of Justice Office of Justice Programs--Office 
of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, Highlights of the 2002 
National Youth Gang Survey (April 2004), available at http://
www.ncjrs.org/pdffiles1/ojjdp/fs200401.pdf.
    \4\  See Id.
    \5\  See Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Gangs now resemble organized crime syndicates who commit 
gun violence, illegal gun trafficking, illegal drug trafficking 
and other serious crimes. More and more communities are 
suffering from gang violence, leading to rival gang battles, 
where all too often innocent bystanders are tragically shot, 
and law-abiding members of communities are prisoners in their 
own homes in fear of being caught in the cross-fire of gang 
violence.
    There has been rapid growth in national and international 
gangs as well. In particular, many communities have seen a 
rapid increase in the membership and presence of ``MS-13,'' a 
violent gang comprised of alien criminals from El Salvador 
(most, if not all of whom, are illegally in this country)--
which has been estimated to include 8,000 to 10,000 members 
operating in 31 States.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \6\ See http://www.house.gov/forbes/documents/gangcliques.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Gang violence in America is a growing problem. While 
national figures have shown a decline in violent crime 
generally, the proportion of violent crimes committed by gang 
members has increased. In 2003, juvenile gang members committed 
over 800 murders across the nation.\7\ Gangs have been directly 
linked to illegal drug trafficking, human trafficking, 
identification documentation falsification, violent maimings, 
assault and murder, and the increased use of firearms to commit 
deadly crimes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \7\  See http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius--03/xl/03tbl2-11.xls.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In response to this problem, the ``Gang Deterrence and 
Community Protection Act of 2005,'' seeks to build on 
strategies that work, including: (1) mandatory-minimum 
penalties for crimes of violence to incapacitate violent gang 
members and to gain leverage from less culpable gang members in 
order to secure cooperation of insiders to solve gang crimes 
and prosecute higher-ups in the organization; (2) joint task 
forces of Federal, State and local law enforcement and 
prosecutors that will join Federal resources with local 
intelligence in order to target the most serious gangs in a 
community; (3) the promotion of intelligence sharing among 
Federal, State and local law enforcement agencies; and (4) 
limited juvenile justice reform to ensure that violent juvenile 
gang members are prosecuted for acts of violence.
    The bill is premised on the need for a national, 
comprehensive, and coordinated approach to reducing gang 
violence in our communities. Such an approach is analogous to 
the national effort in the 1960's and 1970's to eliminate 
organized crime syndicates through aggressive Federal law 
enforcement efforts. The gang bill applies these same 
principles, some of which already have started and are in 
place--to increase significantly the ability of Federal, State 
and local task forces to investigate and prosecute violent 
gangs.
    As in the case of organized crime, Federal law enforcement 
has the ability to conduct long-term and complex criminal 
investigations which are designed to prosecute large 
organizations--akin to national gangs (e.g. ``MS-13,'' 
``Bloods,'' ``Crips,'' ``Latin Kings''). There is no national 
coordinated infrastructure for conducting such investigations, 
nor is there a means to share intelligence among law 
enforcement agencies to coordinate such an effort.
    The bill will create a national infrastructure by: (1) 
designating High Intensity Gang Areas (``HIGAs'') and 
authorizing Federal funding to combat gang activity by creating 
Federal, State and local Gang Enforcement Task Forces that 
bring together local intelligence and Federal resources; (2) 
creating a national means by which to share gang intelligence 
among Federal, State and local law enforcement agencies; and 
(3) authorizing $20 million per year over 5 years to help 
States hire prosecutors, purchase technology, equipment and 
training for gang enforcement.
    When attacking organized crime syndicates, prosecutors were 
given new and effective tools to prosecute and convict members 
of organized crime families. The Justice Department 
aggressively prosecuted such cases, and used a new and valuable 
tool for attacking organized crime, the RICO statute 
(``Racketeer Influenced Corrupt Organizations''). The RICO 
statute gave Federal prosecutors broad jurisdiction to charge 
members of organized crime syndicates with a variety of State 
and Federal crimes typically committed by members of such 
organizations (e.g. State and local crimes involving murder, 
robbery, extortion, gambling). Without such a new tool, and 
enhanced criminal penalties, investigators and prosecutors 
would not have been able to dismantle and bring down the 
significant organized crime figures.

             (A) THE NEW GANG CRIME SECTION 521 OF TITLE 18

    Section 521 of title 18 is the existing gang prosecution 
statute. It has been on the books for 10 years and has been 
used in less than 10 prosecutions. Gang prosecutors have been 
forced to use RICO and other Federal statutes--e.g. narcotics 
laws and illegal gun prosecutions to target gangs and gang 
members. Each of these approaches suffers from deficiencies 
which hamstring law enforcement efforts to dismantle gangs, 
particularly those that are now becoming national in scope.
    The new Section 521 creates a new gang crime statute 
(hereinafter ``Gang Crime statute'') prohibiting a person from 
committing a gang crime that is for the purpose of furthering 
the gang's activities, gaining entrance to or maintaining or 
increasing position in such a gang. A criminal street gang is 
defined to be a formal or informal group or association of 
three or more individuals, who commit two or more gang crimes 
(one of which is a crime of violence) in 2 separate criminal 
episodes, in relation to the group or association, if any of 
the activities of the criminal street gang affects interstate 
or foreign commerce. This provision is intended to reach as far 
as possible to regulate intrastate and interstate activities 
under Congress' well-established power to regulate interstate 
commerce under article I, section 8 of the Constitution. If 
death results from the gang crime, the perpetrator can be 
punished by death or life imprisonment; if the gang crime is 
kidnaping, aggravated sexual abuse or maiming, the perpetrator 
would be sentenced to a minimum of 30 years imprisonment; if 
the gang crime resulted in serious bodily injury (life 
threatening), the perpetrator would be sentenced to a minimum 
of 20 years; and for other crimes gang-related, the perpetrator 
would be sentenced to a minimum of 10 years.
    Gang crimes are defined to include a crime of violence, 
drug trafficking, firearms and explosive violations, money 
laundering, interstate transportation of stolen motor vehicles, 
illegal alien and human trafficking, and aggravated sexual 
abuse. The new Gang Crime statute would add a significant tool 
to law enforcement's arsenal against gangs. Rather than trying 
to shoehorn such cases into the RICO statute, the new gang 
crime statute is narrowly tailored to address the specific 
problem of gangs. Gang investigations and prosecutions take 
time and resources. Civilian witnesses are not typically 
familiar with the inner workings of a gang, and are not usually 
present to observe and identify gang members when committing 
crimes. Moreover, as mentioned by National District Attorneys 
Association (``NDAA'') President Elect, Paul Logli at the 
hearing on this bill, witness intimidation, retaliation and 
killings are huge problems in gang prosecutions.
    Typically, gang cases are built through the cooperation of 
gang members--not simply informants who wear wires or conduct 
undercover operations, but more typically from cooperating 
witnesses, who themselves committed acts of violence or were 
close enough to other gang members to observe or hear about 
such incidents. Homicides and shootings are solved not through 
traditional means but more from insider knowledge, insider 
testimony, and members who plead guilty to serious offenses in 
the hopes of getting a reduced sentence. These witnesses 
usually are incarcerated pending testifying and are not 
available to conduct undercover work.
    Given the complexity of these investigations, it is 
simplistic to argue that gang members can simply be prosecuted 
at the State level for single-incident crimes. Gangs are not 
eliminated by prosecution for a single incident. Moreover, such 
prosecutions are difficult, if not impossible, given the 
absence of witnesses, or insiders who are willing to testify 
against violent gangs for fear of retribution by gang members 
or witness intimidation. Indeed, four MS-13 members are now on 
trial in Federal court in the Eastern District of Virginia for 
killing a female cooperating witness in order to preserve he 
testimony--stabbing her repeatedly over and over to silence 
her. To suggest that witnesses will simply walk into court, 
freely testify and walk out without fear or, retribution is 
contradicted by the real world. Recent press reports noted that 
in Baltimore witnesses are so afraid to testify that they have 
to be jailed rather than freed to return and testify against 
violent gangs and criminal in Baltimore. Nearly 40 percent of 
all homicide cases in Baltimore are dropped because of the lack 
of witness cooperation. It takes time, just like the mafia 
cases of old, to build a case, secure cooperation, and to 
present a complex criminal case to a jury and rid a 
neighborhood of an entire gang and its members. The 
prosecutors, or are different from single-incident crimes where 
defendants are often acquitted, return to the neighborhood and 
continue their ways of intimidation and domestic terrorism 
against law-abiding individuals.
    In reality, complex gang cases are prosecuted against a 
large number of defendants ``in a one-time trial'' where all of 
the evidence, historical, undercover operations, wiretaps, if 
any, are presented so that a jury can see the full-scope of the 
illegal gang's criminal activities. Organized crime cases were 
prosecuted in the same way with long and complex trials 
designed to take out a number of defendants in one single 
prosecution.

          (B) ADVANTAGES OF A NEW GANG CRIME STATUTE OVER RICO

    As noted, RICO was enacted to bring together in one 
criminal prosecution the entire picture of a criminal 
organization. Gangs are no different. Juries need to know all 
of the illegal activities of a gang and gangs need to be 
punished for all of their illegal activities--not just one, not 
just two criminal episodes.
    The new law--Section 521--is designed to address violent 
gangs with a tailored statute addressing crimes typically 
committed by violent gangs. The new Gang Crime statute, Section 
521, has four significant advantages over RICO.
    First, RICO imposes a maximum penalty of 20 years 
imprisonment (unless the underlying racketeering activity 
carries a higher penalty),\8\ while the Gang Crime statute sets 
out clear result oriented mandatory minimum penalties--10 years 
for a gang crime, 20 years for a gang crime that causes serious 
bodily injury, 30 years for kidnaping, aggravated sexual 
assault or maiming, and life or death for a killing;
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \8\ 18 U.S.C. 1963.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Second, RICO does not provide for a death penalty (except 
for Violent Crimes in Aid of Racketeering Activity).\9\ The 
Gang Crime statute has a death penalty for any gang crime 
committed which results in the death of another person;
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \9\ 18 U.S.C. 1959.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Third, RICO requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt of a 
structured ``enterprise''--that is an organization with a 
heirchy, an organization with levels of responsibilities and an 
organized structure,\10\ which is difficult to establish in 
national gang prosecutions where gangs consist of an 
overarching structure but have loosely affiliated smaller 
groups. The Gang Crime statute defines a gang to mean a formal 
or informal group or association of three or more individuals 
who commit two or more gang crimes (one of which is a crime of 
violence); and
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \10\ 18 U.S.C. 1961.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Fourth, RICO requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt that 
the defendant engaged in a ``pattern of racketeering activity'' 
\11\ while the Gang Crime statute only requires that the 
defendant committed a gang crime to further the activities of 
the gang or to gain entrance or maintain position in such a 
gang.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \11\ 18 U.S.C. 1961.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                (C) THE NEED FOR JUVENILE JUSTICE REFORM

    Sec. 115 of the bill gives the Attorney General the 
discretion to charge as an adult in Federal court a juvenile 
who is 16 years or older who commits a crime of violence, such 
as 16- and 17-year-olds who commit murder, aggravated sexual 
abuse, maiming, kidnaping, drive-by shootings, assaults with 
intent to kill, assaults with intent to maim, armed robberies, 
and other similar violent crimes would be eligible for 
prosecution as an adult.
    According to the Department of Justice Homicide Trends 
Report for the years 1976-2002, juveniles are especially 
implicated as homicide offenders in gang related killings.\12\ 
One out of every three murders committed by a juvenile during 
this period of 1976 to 2002 was committed by a juvenile for 
gang-related reasons.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \12\ U.S. Department of Justice Office of Justice Programs--Bureau 
of Justice Statistics, Homicide trends in the United States (September 
2004), available at http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide/homtrnd.htm.
    \13\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    This limited reform, as U.S. Attorney Fitzgerald testified, 
would only result in a relatively small number of juveniles, 
mostly violent juvenile gang members, being prosecuted in 
Federal court, along with co-defendants who are adult members 
of such gangs.
    The current juvenile transfer provisions in title 18 are 
simply unworkable--Federal prosecutors avoid prosecution of 
juvenile violent gang members. First, under the existing 
transfer provision, the Court must hold a hearing to determine 
if such a transfer should occur; if the answer is yes, then 
defendant has a right to an interlocutory appeal. The juvenile 
gang member is inevitably severed from a joint trial with his 
gang member co-defendants and Federal prosecutors are required 
to burden the system, by conducting two separate Federal 
criminal trials at which the victims, the witnesses and other 
members of the community are required to testify at a great 
cost and expense, and without any consideration of the impact 
of such an ordeal on the victims and their families.
    The proposed direct filing provision gives prosecutors the 
discretion to charge the violent juvenile gang members in 
Federal court. A right to appeal on jurisdictional grounds 
would always exist--such as when the defendant is 15 or did not 
commit an act of violence, as defined under section 16 of title 
18. More importantly, such a provision will ensure that all the 
gang members are tried at one time--together and in the same 
courtroom--which will impose less of a burden on crime victims 
while ensuring that a fair trial is conducted. (Obviously, the 
government will not be able to seek the death penalty against 
the juvenile offender).
    Section 115 is a more limited reform than most State laws 
governing adult treatment of juvenile violent offenders. 
According to a 2003 Justice Department report, every State 
allows juveniles to be tried as adults in criminal courts under 
certain circumstances.\14\ In more than half of the States--29 
to be exact--the legislature has decided that in certain cases, 
typically serious violent offenses and other offenses against 
persons, juveniles must be tried as adult criminal 
offenders.\15\ In a smaller number of states, 15, prosecutors 
have discretion to file such cases in criminal court to treat 
juveniles as adults.\16\ In 34 States, juveniles who have been 
tried as adults must be prosecuted in criminal court for any 
subsequent offenses (if convicted of first offense).\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \14\ The National Center for Juvenile Justice and U.S. Department 
of Justice Office of Justice Programs--Office of Juvenile Justice and 
Delinquency Prevention, Technical Assistance to the Juvenile Court--
Special Project Bulletin, Trying and Sentencing Juveniles as Adults: An 
Analysis of State Transfer and Blended Sentencing Laws (October 2003), 
available at http://ncjj.servehttp.com/NCJJWebsite/pdf/
transferbulletin.pdf.
    \15\ Id.
    \16\ Id.
    \17\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    There is a strong need to hold serious, violent and 
habitual offenders accountable for their crimes. In many cases, 
doing so involves the need to prosecute such offenders as 
adults. All too often we hear that prevention is the answer, 
that more government programs, more education, more psychiatric 
services, more job training will eliminate the problem. All 
that may be true but to the innocent and law abiding citizens 
the bullets that are fired at them are no different whether 
fired by an adult of a 16 or 17 year old gang member.

              (D) THE NEED FOR OTHER VIOLENT CRIME REFORMS

    The bill includes a number of provisions enhancing 
penalties for certain Federal offenses typically committed by 
gang members as well as other related reforms including: (1) 
interstate travel in aid of racketeering activity; (2) 
carjacking; (3) illegal gun trafficking; (4) murder-for-hire; 
violent crimes in aid of racketeering; (5) murder and other 
violent crimes committed during and in relation to a drug 
trafficking crime; (6) multiple interstate murder. In addition, 
the bill includes reforms of the statute of limitations for 
violent crimes, modification of venue statute for capital 
cases; pre-trial detention of armed gang members; and increased 
penalties for use of a firearm in a crime of violence and drug 
trafficking.
    The bill is designed to respond to the criminal versatility 
among serious gangs. Assaults, crack cocaine trafficking, 
graffiti, intimidation, vandalism, violence as a means of 
discipline, and violence as a means of retaliation and 
furthering a gangs' illegal activities are common to gang 
activity in the United States. Each gang type favors certain 
sorts of crime--entrepreneurial gangs, violent gangs and drug 
trafficking gangs, all rely on different combinations of 
illegal activities.
    Some may complain that the bill will only fill our prisons 
with more criminals. We expect that, if enacted, such a result 
would enhance public safety. By reducing gang violence, we 
expect that significant cost savings will accrue from the 
reduction of crime and harm to victims and their communities. 
Further, this bill will not result in any significant expansion 
of Federal prosecution of gangs. Rather, we anticipate that the 
Federal role here will be limited to increasing at the margin 
complex gang prosecutions using all available tools. States 
will continue to prosecute 90 percent of criminal cases. Paul 
Logli testified that District Attorneys need help particularly 
in prosecution of national and international gangs. A 
coordinated national effort will increase shared intelligence 
and provide resources to State and local law enforcement to 
develop intelligence gathering and sharing systems on gang 
membership and gang crimes.

                   (E) MANDATORY-MINIMUM PENALTIES: 
                   BENEFITS TO THE LAW-ABIDING PUBLIC

    Finally, the bill includes a number of new mandatory 
minimum criminal penalties with respect to violent gang crimes 
and other violent offenses. As explained here, mandatory 
minimum penalties are effective means for ensuring consistency 
in sentencing, and promote public safety by deterring violent 
criminals and incapacitating violent criminals who are likely 
to commit additional violent crimes.
    The Supreme Court's recent Booker \18\ decision in has 
eviscerated long-standing and effective sentencing policies 
adopted by Congress as part of the Sentencing Reform Act of 
1984. The evidence is starting to come in, and the picture is 
not a good one. Federal judges have begun to hand out sentences 
below the guideline recommended range, citing the discretion 
they now have under the Booker decision. The Sentencing Reform 
Act of 1984 was designed to provide certainty and fairness in 
meeting the purposes of sentencing, avoiding unwarranted 
disparities among defendants with similar records who have been 
found guilty of similar criminal conduct. Sentencing judges 
have started to deviate, and some have announced even 
prospectively that they intend to do so in more cases. Given 
the elimination of an effective determinate sentencing 
guideline system, Congress will need to act quickly in certain 
areas by imposing mandatory-minimum sentences to protect the 
public, particularly when it comes to violent gang crimes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \18\  U.S. v. Booker, 125 S.Ct. 738 (2005).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Mandatory minimum penalties send a clear message to violent 
gang offenders--if you commit the crime--you will do the time. 
Such an approach has proven effective in other gun violence 
reduction programs such as ``Project Exile'' in Virginia and 
nationwide in the Administration's Project Safe Neighborhoods. 
A similar approach is needed here now with our national effort 
against violent gangs.
    Moreover, mandatory minimum penalties provide the tools for 
prosecutors to secure the cooperation of gang members to 
dismantle violent gang organizations and solve violent crimes 
where the witnesses may only be other gang members. Without 
such a penalty, gang members will not cooperate with law 
enforcement; they will simply turn their back on cooperation, 
do the time, and gang violence will continue to expand and to 
threaten our communities.
    Sentencing reforms--mandatory minimum penalties along with 
determinate sentencing requirements--have lead to dramatic 
reductions in violent crime in the last 30 years. There is 
growing research to show that laws such as--truth-in-
sentencing, determinate sentencing practices, ``three-strikes 
and you're out,'' and mandatory sentencing requirements 
resulted in dramatic reductions in crime since the 1970's. 
Violent crime victimization rates have dropped from 47.7 per 
1,000 population in 1973 to 22.8 in 2002--that drop in crime 
has coincided with an increase in the number of prisoners, 
including substantial increases in the number of Federal 
prisoners.\19\ While some would say that is coincidence, 
statistical researchers have shown to the contrary. For 
example, increases in prison population have incapacitated 
recidivists and deterred others from committing crime. 
According to Justice Department statistics on criminal 
offenders, 4 out of every 10 jailed offenders had a current or 
past sentence for a violent offense.\20\ Violent offenders have 
significant recidivism rates--particularly those convicted of 
robbery and burglary.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \19\ U.S. Department of Justice Office of Justice Programs--Bureau 
of Justice Statistics, Homicide trends in the United States (September 
2004), available at http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide/homtrnd.htm.
    \20\ See http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/crimoff.htm#recidivism.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Professor Steven Levitt conducted a study to show that a 
significant part of the decline in violent crime is 
attributable to increased incarceration.\21\ In a more recent 
study, Joanna Shepherd, demonstrated that truth-in-sentencing 
laws--determinate and certain sentences--have had a dramatic 
impact on reducing serious violent crimes.\22\ Since 1994, 
Congress has provided incentive grants to States which can 
demonstrate that violent offenders serve at least 85 percent of 
their sentences. Professor Shepherd conducted a sophisticated 
regression analysis comparing States with and without such 
truth-in-sentencing laws and her conclusions are astounding: in 
those States with determinate sentencing laws--murders fell by 
16 percent, aggravated assaults by 12 percent, robberies by 24 
percent, rapes by 12 percent and larcenies by 3 percent.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \21\  Steven D. Levitt, Understanding Why Crime Fell in the 1990's: 
Four Factors That Explain the Decline and Seven That Do Not, 18 J.Econ. 
Perspectives 163 (2004).
    \22\  Joanna M. Shepherd, Police, Prosecutors, Criminals and 
Determinate Sentencing: The Truth about Truth-in-Sentencing Laws, 45 
J.L. & Econ. 509 (2002).
    \23\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Other studies confirm the obvious point--incarcerating an 
offender prevents him from repeating his crimes while he is in 
prison.\24\ Again, Joanna M. Shepherd, a leading expert in this 
field, established that California's ``Three Strikes'' law had 
significant public benefits by deterring criminals from 
committing additional violent crimes. Her study demonstrated 
that in the first 2 years of California's three strikes law--
eight murders, 3,952 aggravated assaults, 10, 672 robberies and 
384,488 burglaries were deterred in California.\25\ The ``Three 
Strikes'' law deterred crimes not only in counties where such 
sentences were imposed but in surrounding counties, and that 
criminals seek to avoid not only the third and last crime, but 
also the first and second crimes.\26\ More generally, estimates 
of both a deterrent and an incapacitative effect have suggested 
that each 1% increase in the prison population produces 
approximately 0.10% to 0.30% fewer crimes.\27\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \24\  Peter W. Greenwood et al., Three Strikes and You're Out: 
Estimated Benefits and Costs of California's New Mandatory-Sentencing 
Law, in Three Strikes and You're Out: Vengeance as Public Policy (David 
Schichor & Dale K. Sechrest eds. 1996).
    \25\ Joanna M. Shepherd, Fear of First Strike: The Full Deterrent 
Effect of California's Two- and Three-Strikes Legislation, 31 J. Legal 
Stud. 159 (2002).
    \26\ Id.
    \27\  John J. Donahue III & Peter Siegelman, Allocating resources 
Among Prisons and Social Programs in the Battle Against Crime, 27 J. 
Legal STUD. 1, 12-14 (1998); James Q. Qilson, Prisons in a Free 
Society, 117 Pub. Interest 37, 38 (Fall 1994); Thomas Marvell & 
Carlisle Moody, Prison Population Growth and Crime Reduction, 10 J. 
Quantitative Criminal. 109 (1994).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Balanced against these reductions in crime from deterrence 
and incapacitation, there are significant cost savings to 
society from reducing the occurrence of crime. The available 
data suggests that the costs are high. In a 1996 study 
conducted by the National Institute of Justice, the calculated 
loss per criminal victimization (tangible and intangible 
losses) range from $2.9 million for various forms of murder to 
$87,000 for rape and sexual assault, to $8,000 for robbery, to 
$14,000 for burglary and $370 for larceny.\28\ They also 
computed the aggregate annual victim cost in the United States 
from crime--$450 billion as of 1990, or more than $1800 per 
United States resident.\29\ Another more recent analysis using 
a different methodology reported an even higher aggregate 
burden from crime on the United States--in the neighborhood of 
$1 trillion annually.\30\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \28\ U.S. Dept. of Justice, National Institute of Justice, Victim 
Costs and Consequences: A New Look (1996).
    \29\ Id.
    \30\ David A. Anderson, The Aggregate Burden of Crime, 42 J.L. & 
Econ. 611 (1999).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Considered in this context, balancing these obvious public 
benefits from swift and certain punishments, opponents to 
mandatory-minimums offer little evidence to the contrary--they 
ignore the research showing clear public benefits from such 
sentencing policies, and trumpet cases of claimed injustice as 
a means to obfuscate the issue, ultimately to the detriment of 
public safety, and the rights of law-abiding citizens to live 
in a crime-free secure community.

                                Hearings

    The Committee's Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and 
Homeland Security held a legislative hearing on H.R. 1279 on 
April 5, 2005. Testimony was received from four witnesses, 
representing the United States Department of Justice, the 
National District Attorney's Association, Michelle Guess, a 
victim of gang violence, and Professor Robert Shepard, 
University of Richmond Law School, Richmond, Virginia, with 
additional material submitted by various organizations.

                        Committee Consideration

    On April 12, 2005, the Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, 
and Homeland Security met in open session and ordered favorably 
reported the bill H.R. 1279, by a vote of 5 to 3, with one 
member voting present, a quorum being present. On April 20, 
2005, the Committee met in open session and ordered favorably 
reported the bill H.R. 1279 with an amendment by a recorded 
vote of 16 to 11, a quorum being present.

                         Vote of the Committee

    In compliance with clause 3(b) of Rule XIII of the Rules of 
the House of Representatives, the Committee notes that the 
following rollcall votes occurred during the Committee's 
consideration of H.R. 1279, the Committee passed an amendment 
in the nature of a substitute offered by Rep. Forbes by a 
rollcall vote of 15 to 10.
    1. Representative Schiff offered an amendment in the nature 
of a substitute to the Forbes amendment in the nature of a 
substitute. By a rollcall vote of 3 yeas and 22 nays, the 
amendment was defeated.

                                                   ROLLCALL NO. 1
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                       Ayes            Nays           Present
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Hyde........................................................
Mr. Coble.......................................................                              X
Mr. Smith (Texas)...............................................                              X
Mr. Gallegly....................................................                              X
Mr. Goodlatte...................................................                              X
Mr. Chabot......................................................                              X
Mr. Lungren.....................................................
Mr. Jenkins.....................................................
Mr. Cannon......................................................                              X
Mr. Bachus......................................................                              X
Mr. Inglis......................................................                              X
Mr. Hostettler..................................................
Mr. Green.......................................................                              X
Mr. Keller......................................................                              X
Mr. Issa........................................................                              X
Mr. Flake.......................................................                              X
Mr. Pence.......................................................
Mr. Forbes......................................................                              X
Mr. King........................................................                              X
Mr. Feeney......................................................                              X
Mr. Franks......................................................                              X
Mr. Gohmert.....................................................
Mr. Conyers.....................................................                              X
Mr. Berman......................................................
Mr. Boucher.....................................................
Mr. Nadler......................................................                              X
Mr. Scott.......................................................                              X
Mr. Watt........................................................
Ms. Lofgren.....................................................
Ms. Jackson Lee.................................................
Ms. Waters......................................................                              X
Mr. Meehan......................................................
Mr. Delahunt....................................................
Mr. Wexler......................................................              X
Mr. Weiner......................................................
Mr. Schiff......................................................              X
Ms. Sanchez.....................................................                              X
Mr. Smith (Washington)..........................................
Mr. Van Hollen..................................................              X
Mr. Sensenbrenner, Chairman.....................................                              X
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
    Total.......................................................              3              22
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    2. Representatives Conyers and Chris Van Hollen offered an 
amendment to the amendment in the nature of a substitute. By a 
rollcall vote of 7 yeas and 18 nays, the amendment was 
defeated.

                                                   ROLLCALL NO. 2
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                       Ayes            Nays           Present
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Hyde........................................................
Mr. Coble.......................................................                              X
Mr. Smith (Texas)...............................................                              X
Mr. Gallegly....................................................                              X
Mr. Goodlatte...................................................                              X
Mr. Chabot......................................................                              X
Mr. Lungren.....................................................
Mr. Jenkins.....................................................
Mr. Cannon......................................................                              X
Mr. Bachus......................................................                              X
Mr. Inglis......................................................                              X
Mr. Hostettler..................................................
Mr. Green.......................................................                              X
Mr. Keller......................................................                              X
Mr. Issa........................................................                              X
Mr. Flake.......................................................                              X
Mr. Pence.......................................................
Mr. Forbes......................................................                              X
Mr. King........................................................                              X
Mr. Feeney......................................................                              X
Mr. Franks......................................................                              X
Mr. Gohmert.....................................................                              X
Mr. Conyers.....................................................              X
Mr. Berman......................................................
Mr. Boucher.....................................................
Mr. Nadler......................................................              X
Mr. Scott.......................................................              X
Mr. Watt........................................................
Ms. Lofgren.....................................................
Ms. Jackson Lee.................................................
Ms. Waters......................................................              X
Mr. Meehan......................................................
Mr. Delahunt....................................................
Mr. Wexler......................................................
Mr. Weiner......................................................
Mr. Schiff......................................................              X
Ms. Sanchez.....................................................              X
Mr. Smith (Washington)..........................................
Mr. Van Hollen..................................................              X
Mr. Sensenbrenner, Chairman.....................................                              X
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
    Total.......................................................              7              18
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    3. Representative Schiff offered an amendment to the Forbes 
amendment in the nature of a substitute. By a rollcall vote 8 
yeas and 18 nays, the amendment as defeated.

                                                   ROLLCALL NO. 3
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                       Ayes            Nays           Present
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Hyde........................................................
Mr. Coble.......................................................                              X
Mr. Smith (Texas)...............................................
Mr. Gallegly....................................................                              X
Mr. Goodlatte...................................................                              X
Mr. Chabot......................................................                              X
Mr. Lungren.....................................................
Mr. Jenkins.....................................................                              X
Mr. Cannon......................................................                              X
Mr. Bachus......................................................                              X
Mr. Inglis......................................................                              X
Mr. Hostettler..................................................
Mr. Green.......................................................                              X
Mr. Keller......................................................                              X
Mr. Issa........................................................                              X
Mr. Flake.......................................................                              X
Mr. Pence.......................................................
Mr. Forbes......................................................                              X
Mr. King........................................................                              X
Mr. Feeney......................................................                              X
Mr. Franks......................................................                              X
Mr. Gohmert.....................................................                              X
Mr. Conyers.....................................................              X
Mr. Berman......................................................
Mr. Boucher.....................................................
Mr. Nadler......................................................              X
Mr. Scott.......................................................              X
Mr. Watt........................................................
Ms. Lofgren.....................................................
Ms. Jackson Lee.................................................
Ms. Waters......................................................              X
Mr. Meehan......................................................
Mr. Delahunt....................................................              X
Mr. Wexler......................................................
Mr. Weiner......................................................
Mr. Schiff......................................................              X
Ms. Sanchez.....................................................              X
Mr. Smith (Washington)..........................................
Mr. Van Hollen..................................................              X
Mr. Sensenbrenner, Chairman.....................................                              X
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
    Total.......................................................              8              18
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    4. Representative Forbes offered an amendment in the nature 
of a substitute. By a rollcall vote 15 yeas and 10 nays, the 
amendment was agreed to.

                                                   ROLLCALL NO. 4
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                       Ayes            Nays           Present
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Hyde........................................................
Mr. Coble.......................................................              X
Mr. Smith (Texas)...............................................              X
Mr. Gallegly....................................................
Mr. Goodlatte...................................................              X
Mr. Chabot......................................................              X
Mr. Lungren.....................................................
Mr. Jenkins.....................................................              X
Mr. Cannon......................................................              X
Mr. Bachus......................................................
Mr. Inglis......................................................                              X
Mr. Hostettler..................................................
Mr. Green.......................................................              X
Mr. Keller......................................................              X
Mr. Issa........................................................              X
Mr. Flake.......................................................
Mr. Pence.......................................................
Mr. Forbes......................................................              X
Mr. King........................................................              X
Mr. Feeney......................................................              X
Mr. Franks......................................................              X
Mr. Gohmert.....................................................              X
Mr. Conyers.....................................................                              X
Mr. Berman......................................................                              X
Mr. Boucher.....................................................
Mr. Nadler......................................................                              X
Mr. Scott.......................................................                              X
Mr. Watt........................................................
Ms. Lofgren.....................................................
Ms. Jackson Lee.................................................                              X
Ms. Waters......................................................                              X
Mr. Meehan......................................................
Mr. Delahunt....................................................
Mr. Wexler......................................................                              X
Mr. Weiner......................................................
Mr. Schiff......................................................
Ms. Sanchez.....................................................                              X
Mr. Smith (Washington)..........................................
Mr. Van Hollen..................................................                              X
Mr. Sensenbrenner, Chairman.....................................              X
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
    Total.......................................................             15              10
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    5. On a motion to report H.R. 1279, as amended by an 
amendment in the nature of a substitute, as amended. By a roll 
all vote of 16 yeas and 11 nays, the motion was agreed to.

                                                   ROLLCALL NO. 5
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                       Ayes            Nays           Present
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Hyde........................................................
Mr. Coble.......................................................              X
Mr. Smith (Texas)...............................................              X
Mr. Gallegly....................................................              X
Mr. Goodlatte...................................................              X
Mr. Chabot......................................................              X
Mr. Lungren.....................................................
Mr. Jenkins.....................................................              X
Mr. Cannon......................................................              X
Mr. Bachus......................................................
Mr. Inglis......................................................                              X
Mr. Hostettler..................................................
Mr. Green.......................................................              X
Mr. Keller......................................................              X
Mr. Issa........................................................              X
Mr. Flake.......................................................
Mr. Pence.......................................................
Mr. Forbes......................................................              X
Mr. King........................................................              X
Mr. Feeney......................................................              X
Mr. Franks......................................................              X
Mr. Gohmert.....................................................              X
Mr. Conyers.....................................................                              X
Mr. Berman......................................................                              X
Mr. Boucher.....................................................
Mr. Nadler......................................................                              X
Mr. Scott.......................................................                              X
Mr. Watt........................................................
Ms. Lofgren.....................................................
Ms. Jackson Lee.................................................                              X
Ms. Waters......................................................                              X
Mr. Meehan......................................................
Mr. Delahunt....................................................
Mr. Wexler......................................................                              X
Mr. Weiner......................................................                              X
Mr. Schiff......................................................
Ms. Sanchez.....................................................                              X
Mr. Smith (Washington)..........................................
Mr. Van Hollen..................................................                              X
Mr. Sensenbrenner, Chairman.....................................              X
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
    Total.......................................................             16              11
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                      Committee Oversight Findings

    In compliance with clause 3c(1) of Rule XIII of the Rules 
of the House of Representatives, the Committee reports that the 
findings and recommendations of the Committee, based on 
oversight activities under clause 2(b)(1) of rule X of the 
Rules of the House of Representatives, are incorporated in the 
descriptive portions of this report.

               New Budget Authority and Tax Expenditures

    Clause 3(c)(2) of Rule XIII of the Rules of the House of 
Representatives is inapplicable because this legislation does 
not provide new budgetary authority or increased tax 
expenditures.

               Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate

    In compliance with clause 3c(3) of Rule XIII of the Rules 
of the House of Representatives, the Committee sets forth, with 
respect to the bill, H.R. 1279, the following estimate and 
comparison prepared by the Director of the Congressional Budget 
Office under section 402 of the Congressional Budget Act of 
1974:

                                                       May 5, 2005.
Hon. F. James Sensenbrenner, Jr.,
Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
    Dear Mr. Chairman: The Congressional Budget Office has 
completed the enclosed cost estimate for H.R. 1279, the Gang 
Deterrence and Community Protection Act of 2005.
    The CBO staff contacts for this estimate are Mark Grabowicz 
(for federal costs) and Melissa Merrell (for the impact on 
state and local governments).
            Sincerely,
                                               Douglas Holtz-Eakin.
    Enclosure.

H.R. 1279--Gang Deterrence and Community Protection Act of 2005

    Summary: H.R. 1279 would authorize the appropriation of 
nearly $80 million annually over the 2006-2010 period for 
Department of Justice (DOJ) programs to investigate and 
prosecute criminal street gangs and to protect witnesses and 
victims of gang-related crimes. The bill also would establish 
mandatory minimum prison sentences for certain crimes committed 
by members of criminal street gangs.
    Assuming appropriation of the necessary amounts, CBO 
estimates that implementing H.R. 1279 would cost about $370 
million over the 2006-2010 period. This total includes roughly 
$60 million to incarcerate individuals in the federal prison 
system for longer periods of time than they would serve under 
current law. The bill could affect direct spending and 
receipts, but CBO estimates that any such effects would not be 
significant.
    H.R. 1279 contains no intergovernmental mandates as defined 
in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA). State and local 
governments would benefit from the authorization of funds for 
certain programs to reduce participation in criminal street 
gangs; any costs to those governments would be incurred 
voluntarily.
    H.R. 1279 contains no new private-sector mandates as 
defined in UMRA.
     Estimated cost to the Federal Government: The estimated 
budgetary impact of H.R. 1279 is shown in the following table. 
The cost of this legislation falls within budget function 750 
(administration of justice).

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                  By fiscal year, in millions of dollars--
                                                           -----------------------------------------------------
                                                              2005     2006     2007     2008     2009     2010
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                      SPENDING SUBJECT TO APPROPRIATION \1\
 
Spending Under Current Law for the Federal Prison System
 and for Programs Funded by H.R. 1279:
    Budget Authorization \2\..............................    5,653    5,838    6,004    6,183    6,364    6,552
    Estimated Outlays.....................................    5,743    5,943    6,037    6,208    6,361    6,538
Proposed Changes:
    High Intensity Interstate Gang Activity Areas:
        Authorization Level...............................        0       50       50       50       50       50
        Estimated Outlays.................................        0       11       30       50       50       50
    Project Safe Neighborhoods Program:
        Authorization Level...............................        0        8        8        8        8        8
        Estimated Outlays.................................        0        6        8        8        8        8
    Grants to Combat Violent Crimes and Protect Witnesses
     and Victims of Crimes:
        Authorization Level...............................        0       20       20       20       20       20
        Estimated Outlays.................................        0        4       12       20       20       20
        Total DOJ Programs to Combat Gangs:
            Authorization Level...........................        0       78       78       78       78       78
            Estimated Outlays.............................        0       22       50       78       78       78
    Federal Prison System:
        Estimated Authorization Level.....................        0        1        9       13       15       25
        Estimated Outlays.................................        0        1        9       13       15       25
        Total Changes:
            Estimated Authorization Level.................        0       79       87       91       93      103
            Estimated Outlays.............................        0       23       59       91       93      103
Spending Under H.R. 1279:
    Estimated Authorization Level.........................    5,653    5,916    6,090    6,273    6,457    6,654
    Estimated Outlays.....................................    5,743    5,965    6,095    6,298    6,454    6,640
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ In addition to the amounts shown above, enacting H.R. 1279 also could affect revenues and direct spending,
  but CBO estimates that any such effects would not be significant in any year.
\2\ The 2005 level is the amount appropriated for that year for the federal prison system and for the DOJ
  programs funded by H.R. 1279. Figures over the 2006-2010 period are CBO's baseline estimate for those
  programs, constructed by adjusting the 2005 level for anticipated inflation.

    Basis of estimate: For this estimate, CBO assumes that the 
bill will be enacted by the beginning of fiscal year 2006. CBO 
estimates that implementing H.R. 1279 would cost about $370 
million over the 2006-2010 period, assuming appropriation of 
the necessary funds. We also estimate that enacting the bill 
could increase both direct spending and receipts, but any such 
effects would not be significant in any year.

Spending subject to appropriation

    For this estimate, CBO assumes that the necessary amounts 
will be appropriated by the start of each fiscal year and that 
spending will follow the historical spending patterns for these 
or similar activities.
    DOJ Programs to Combat Gang-Related Crimes. H.R. 1279 would 
authorize the appropriation of:
    
 $50 million for each of the fiscal years 2006 
through 2010 for the Attorney General to establish teams of 
federal, state, and local law enforcement agents to investigate 
and prosecute criminal street gangs in selected areas 
considered to be ``high intensity interstate gang activity 
areas'' and to make grants for community-based programs to 
prevent gang activities in those areas;
    
 $7.5 million for each of the fiscal years 2006 
through 2010 for the Attorney General to expand the Project 
Safe Neighborhoods program, which requires United States 
Attorneys to investigate and prosecute criminal street gangs; 
and
    
 $20 million for each of the fiscal years 2006 
through 2010 for grants to state and local governments to 
combat violent crime and to protect witnesses and victims of 
crimes.
    Federal Prison System. H.R. 1279 would establish mandatory 
minimum prison sentences for a wide range of offenses committed 
by criminal street gangs under specified circumstances. The 
bill would define street gangs as groups of three or more 
individuals who commit two or more designated crimes, including 
a crime of violence, that affect interstate or foreign 
commerce. Under the bill, gang members who commit certain 
crimes would, in many cases, be required to serve sentences of 
at least 10 years.
    The U.S. Sentencing Commission analyzed the impact on the 
federal prison population of the bill's provisions that would 
require minimum prison sentences; by far, the greatest impact 
would result from drug trafficking offenses. The commission's 
analysis was limited, however, because information about 
defendants' status as criminal street gang members is not 
available and because considerable uncertainty exists as to how 
the bill's mandatory minimum sentences might affect defendants' 
willingness to accept plea bargains.
    Based on several analyses prepared by the U.S. Sentencing 
Commission, CBO estimates that the longer sentences required 
under the bill would increase the prison population by 100 
prisoners a year initially, and that this number would grow to 
roughly 900 prisoners a year by fiscal year 2010. However, the 
increase in prison population resulting from H.R. 1279 could be 
higher or lower than these figures, depending on the number of 
defendants determined to be street gang members and thus 
subject to minimum sentences. (If the increase in prison 
population is significantly higher than estimated, construction 
of a new federal prison might be required.) According to the 
Bureau of Prisons, for an increase in the federal prison 
population of this magnitude, it would spend about $24,000 a 
year (at 2005 prices) to house each additional prisoner. CBO 
estimates that the cost to support these additional prisoners 
would total $62 million over the 2006-2010 period.

Direct spending and receipts

    H.R. 1279 would establish new and increased criminal 
penalties for various crimes involving criminal street gangs. 
Thus, the federal government might collect additional fines if 
the bill is enacted. Collections of criminal fines are 
deposited in the Crime Victims Fund and later spent. CBO 
expects that any additional receipts and direct spending would 
not be significant.
    Estimated impact on state, local, and tribal governments: 
This bill contains no intergovernmental mandates as defined by 
UMRA. Assuming appropriation of the authorized amounts, state 
and local law enforcement and prosecutors could receive up to 
$100 million in federal assistance over the next five years to 
combat gang activity; any costs to those governments would be 
incurred voluntarily. Those governments also would benefit from 
expanded programs of the Federal Bureau of Investigation and 
the United States Attorneys to identify and prosecute criminal 
street gangs.
    Estimated impact on the private sector: H.R. 1279 contains 
no new private-sector mandates as defined in UMRA.
    Estimate prepared by: Federal Costs: Mark Grabowicz. Impact 
on State, Local, and Tribal Governments: Melissa Merrell. 
Impact on the Private Sector: Paige Piper/Bach.
    Estimate approved by: Robert A. Sunshine, Assistant 
Director for Budget Analysis.

                    Performance Goals and Objectives

    The Committee states that pursuant to clause 3c(4) of Rule 
XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives, H.R. 1279, 
is intended to reduce the incidence of violent gang crimes and 
deter and punish criminal gang activity by providing stronger 
penalties for such crimes and by providing additional resources 
to Federal, State and local law enforcement to combat gang 
violence.

                   Constitutional Authority Statement

    Pursuant to clause 3(d)(1) of Rule XIII of the Rules of the 
House of Representatives, the Committee finds the authority for 
this legislation in article I, section 8, of the Constitution.

               Section-by-Section Analysis and Discussion

    The following discussion describes the bill as reported by 
the Committee.

   TITLE I--CRIMINAL LAW REFORMS AND ENHANCED PENALTIES TO DETER AND 
        PUNISH ILLEGAL STREET GANG ACTIVITY AND RELATED REFORMS

    Sec. 101. Revision and Extension of Penalties Related to 
Criminal Street Gang Activity. This section revises existing 
section 521 of title 18, United State Code, to prohibit gang 
crimes that are committed in order to further the activities of 
a criminal street gang. A ``criminal street gang'' is defined 
to mean a formal or informal group or association who commit 2 
or more predicate gang crimes, one of which is a crime of 
violence. The term ``gang crime'' is defined to include violent 
and other serious State and Federal felony crimes. The penalty 
for committing a gang crime depends on the seriousness of the 
offense: (a) death or life imprisonment for any crime resulting 
in death; (b) mandatory minimum of 30 years with a maximum of 
life for kidnapping, aggravated sexual abuse or maiming; c 
mandatory minimum of 20 years to life for an assault resulting 
in serious bodily injury; and (d) mandatory minimum of 10 years 
to life imprisonment for any other gang crime.
    Sec. 102. Increased Penalties for Interstate and Foreign 
Travel or Transportation in Aid of Racketeering. This section 
expands existing section 1952 of title 18, United States Code, 
to increase penalties and simplifies the elements of the 
offense.
    Sec. 103. Amendments Relating to Violent Crime. This 
section amends criminal statutes relating to definition and 
penalties for carjacking (section 2119), illegal gun transfers 
to drug traffickers or violent criminals (section 924(g)), 
special sentencing provisions (section 3582(d)), and conspiracy 
to defraud the United States (section 371).
    Sec. 104. Increased Penalties for Use of Interstate 
Commerce Facilities in the Commission of Murder-For-Hire and 
Other Felony Crimes of Violence. This section amends existing 
section 1958 of title 18, United States Code, to increase 
penalties for use of interstate commerce facilities in the 
commission of a murder-for-hire and other felony crimes of 
violence.
    Sec. 105. Increased Penalties for Violent Crimes in Aid of 
Racketeering Activity. This section amends existing section 
1959(a) of title 18, United States Code, to increase penalties 
and expand the prohibition to include aggravated sexual abuse.
    Sec. 106. Murder and Other Violent Crimes Committed During 
and In Relation to a Drug Trafficking Crime. This section fills 
a gap in existing Federal law and creates a new criminal 
offense for violent acts committed during and in relation to a 
drug trafficking crime.
    Sec. 107. Multiple Interstate Murder. This section creates 
a new criminal offense for traveling in or causing another to 
travel in interstate or foreign commerce or to use any facility 
in interstate or foreign commerce with the intent that 2 or 
more murders be committed in violation of the laws of any State 
or the United States.
    Sec. 108. Additional Racketeering Activity. This section 
modifies the list of RICO predicates to clarify applicability 
of predicate offense which occur on Indian country (as defined 
in section 1151) or in any other area of exclusive Federal 
jurisdiction.
    Sec. 109. Expansion of Rebuttable Presumption Against 
Release of Persons Charged with Firearms. This section applies 
the rebuttable presumption in pre-trial release detention 
hearings to cases in which a defendant is charged with firearms 
offenses after having previously been convicted of a prior 
crime of violence or a serious drug offense.
    Sec. 110. Venue in Capital Cases. This section amends 
section 3235 of title 18 to clarify venue in capital cases 
where murder, or related conduct, occurred. The existing venue 
provision restricts venue in criminal cases where murder occurs 
in relation to racketeering, drug conspiracy, or criminal 
street gangs
    Sec. 111. Statute of Limitations for Violent Crime. This 
section extends the statute of limitations for violent crime 
cases from 5 years to 15 years after the offense occurred or 
the continuing offense was completed.
    Sec. 112. Clarification of Definition of Crime of Violence. 
This section amends the definition of a crime of violence in 
response to recent restrictive court decisions and broadens the 
definition to include certain drug trafficking crimes.
    Sec. 113. Clarification to Hearsay Exception for Forfeiture 
by Wrongdoing. This section codifies the holding in United 
States v. Cherry, 217 F.3d 811 (10th Cir. 2000), which permits 
admission of statements of a murdered witness to be introduced 
against the defendant who caused a witness' unavailability and 
the members of the conspiracy if such actions were foreseeable 
to the other members of the conspiracy.
    Sec. 114. Increased Penalties for Criminal Use of Firearms 
in Crimes of Violence and Drug Trafficking. This section 
increases the penalty for the use or discharge of a firearm in 
a crime of violence or drug trafficking crime. The penalties 
are increased further if the firearm injures a person.
    Sec. 115. Transfer of Violent Juvenile Offenders. This 
section authorizes the Attorney General to charge as an adult 
in Federal court a juvenile who is 16 years or older and 
commits a crime of violence.

  TITLE II--INCREASED FEDERAL RESOURCES TO DETER AND PREVENT AT-RISK 
                YOUTH FROM JOINING ILLEGAL STREET GANGS

    Sec. 201. Designation of and Assistance for ``High 
Intensity'' Interstate Gang Activity Areas. This section 
requires the Attorney General, after consultation with the 
Governors of appropriate states, to designate certain locations 
as high intensity interstate gang activity areas and provides 
assistance in the form of criminal street gang enforcement 
teams made up of local, state and Federal law enforcement 
authorities to investigate and prosecute criminal street gangs 
in each high intensity interstate gang activity area. 
Subsection (e) authorizes funding of $50 million for each 
fiscal year 2005 through 2009.
    Sec. 202. Grants to States and Local Prosecutors to Combat 
Violent Crime. This section authorizes $20 million for each of 
the fiscal years 2005 to 2009 to allow for the hiring of 
additional state and local prosecutors, and the purchasing of 
technological equipment to increase the accurate identification 
and prosecution of violent offenders

         Changes in Existing Law Made by the Bill, as Reported

  In compliance with clause 3(e) of rule XIII of the Rules of 
the House of Representatives, changes in existing law made by 
the bill, as reported, are shown as follows (existing law 
proposed to be omitted is enclosed in black brackets, new 
matter is printed in italics, existing law in which no change 
is proposed is shown in roman):

                      TITLE 18, UNITED STATES CODE




           *       *       *       *       *       *       *
PART I--CRIMES

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


CHAPTER 1--GENERAL PROVISIONS

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *



Sec. 16. Crime of violence defined

  The term ``crime of violence'' means--
          (a) * * *
          [(b) any other offense that is a felony and that, by 
        its nature, involves a substantial risk that physical 
        force against the person or property of another may be 
        used in the course of committing the offense.]
          (b) any other offense that is an offense punishable 
        by imprisonment for more than one year and that, by its 
        nature, involves a substantial risk that physical force 
        may be used against the person or property of another, 
        or is an offense punishable under subparagraphs (A), 
        (B), or (C) of section 401(b)(1) of the Controlled 
        Substances Act.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


CHAPTER 19--CONSPIRACY

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


Sec. 371. Conspiracy to commit offense or to defraud United States

  If two or more persons conspire either to commit any offense 
against the United States, or to defraud the United States, or 
any agency thereof in any manner or for any purpose, and one or 
more of such persons do any act to effect the object of the 
conspiracy, each shall be fined under this title or imprisoned 
not more than [five] 20 years, or both.
  If, however, the offense, the commission of which is the 
object of the conspiracy, is a misdemeanor only, the punishment 
for such conspiracy shall not exceed the maximum punishment 
provided for such misdemeanor.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


                   [CHAPTER 26--CRIMINAL STREET GANGS

[Sec.
[521.  Criminal street gangs

[Sec. 521. Criminal street gangs

  [(a) Definitions.--
          [``conviction'' includes a finding, under State or 
        Federal law, that a person has committed an act of 
        juvenile delinquency involving a violent or controlled 
        substances felony.
          [``criminal street gang'' means an ongoing group, 
        club, organization, or association of 5 or more 
        persons--
                  [(A) that has as 1 of its primary purposes 
                the commission of 1 or more of the criminal 
                offenses described in subsection (c);
                  [(B) the members of which engage, or have 
                engaged within the past 5 years, in a 
                continuing series of offenses described in 
                subsection (c); and
                  [(C) the activities of which affect 
                interstate or foreign commerce.
          [``State'' means a State of the United States, the 
        District of Columbia, and any commonwealth, territory, 
        or possession of the United States.
  [(b) Penalty.--The sentence of a person convicted of an 
offense described in subsection (c) shall be increased by up to 
10 years if the offense is committed under the circumstances 
described in subsection (d).
  [(c) Offenses.--The offenses described in this section are--
          [(1) a Federal felony involving a controlled 
        substance (as defined in section 102 of the Controlled 
        Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 802)) for which the maximum 
        penalty is not less than 5 years;
          [(2) a Federal felony crime of violence that has as 
        an element the use or attempted use of physical force 
        against the person of another; and
          [(3) a conspiracy to commit an offense described in 
        paragraph (1) or (2).
  [(d) Circumstances.--The circumstances described in this 
section are that the offense described in subsection (c) was 
committed by a person who--
          [(1) participates in a criminal street gang with 
        knowledge that its members engage in or have engaged in 
        a continuing series of offenses described in subsection 
        (c);
          [(2) intends to promote or further the felonious 
        activities of the criminal street gang or maintain or 
        increase his or her position in the gang; and
          [(3) has been convicted within the past 5 years for--
                  [(A) an offense described in subsection (c);
                  [(B) a State offense--
                          [(i) involving a controlled substance 
                        (as defined in section 102 of the 
                        Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 
                        802)) for which the maximum penalty is 
                        not less than 5 years' imprisonment; or
                          [(ii) that is a felony crime of 
                        violence that has as an element the use 
                        or attempted use of physical force 
                        against the person of another;
                  [(C) any Federal or State felony offense that 
                by its nature involves a substantial risk that 
                physical force against the person of another 
                may be used in the course of committing the 
                offense; or
                  [(D) a conspiracy to commit an offense 
                described in subparagraph (A), (B), or (C).]

                   CHAPTER 26--CRIMINAL STREET GANGS

Sec.
521. Criminal street gang prosecutions.

Sec. 521. Criminal street gang prosecutions

  (a) Street Gang Crime.--Whoever commits, or conspires, 
threatens or attempts to commit, a gang crime for the purpose 
of furthering the activities of a criminal street gang, or 
gaining entrance to or maintaining or increasing position in 
such a gang, shall, in addition to being subject to a fine 
under this title--
          (1) if the gang crime results in the death of any 
        person, be sentenced to death or life in prison;
          (2) if the gang crime is kidnapping, aggravated 
        sexual abuse, or maiming, be imprisoned for life or any 
        term of years not less than 30;
          (3) if the gang crime is assault resulting in serious 
        bodily injury (as defined in section 1365), be 
        imprisoned for life or any term of years not less than 
        20; and
          (4) in any other case, be imprisoned for life or for 
        any term of years not less than 10.
  (b) Forfeiture.--
          (1) In general.--The court, in imposing sentence on 
        any person convicted of a violation of this section, 
        shall order, in addition to any other sentence imposed 
        and irrespective of any provision of State law, that 
        such person shall forfeit to the United States such 
        person's interest in--
                  (A) any property used, or intended to be 
                used, in any manner or part, to commit, or to 
                facilitate the commission of, the violation; 
                and
                  (B) any property constituting, or derived 
                from, any proceeds the person obtained, 
                directly or indirectly, as a result of the 
                violation.
          (2) Application of controlled substances act.--
        Subsections (b), (c), (e), (f), (g), (h), (i), (j), 
        (k), (l), (m), (n), (o), and (p) of section 413 of the 
        Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 853) shall apply 
        to a forfeiture under this section as though it were a 
        forfeiture under that section.
  (c) Definitions.--The following definitions apply in this 
section:
          (1) Criminal street gang.--The term ``criminal street 
        gang'' means a formal or informal group or association 
        of 3 or more individuals, who commit 2 or more gang 
        crimes (one of which is a crime of violence other than 
        an offense punishable under subparagraphs (A), (B), or 
        (C) of section 401(b)(1) of the Controlled Substances 
        Act), in 2 or more separate criminal episodes, in 
        relation to the group or association, if any of the 
        activities of the criminal street gang affects 
        interstate or foreign commerce.
          (2) Gang crime.--The term ``gang crime'' means 
        conduct constituting any Federal or State crime, 
        punishable by imprisonment for more than one year, in 
        any of the following categories:
                  (A) A crime of violence.
                  (B) A crime involving obstruction of justice, 
                tampering with or retaliating against a 
                witness, victim, or informant, or burglary.
                  (C) A crime involving the manufacturing, 
                importing, distributing, possessing with intent 
                to distribute, or otherwise dealing in a 
                controlled substance or listed chemical (as 
                those terms are defined in section 102 of the 
                Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 802)).
                  (D) Any conduct punishable under section 844 
                (relating to explosive materials), subsection 
                (a)(1), (d), (g)(1) (where the underlying 
                conviction is a violent felony (as defined in 
                section 924(e)(2)(B) of this title) or is a 
                serious drug offense (as defined in section 
                924(e)(2)(A))), (g)(2), (g)(3), (g)(4), (g)(5), 
                (g)(8), (g)(9), (i), (j), (k), (n), (o), (p), 
                (q), (u), or (x) of section 922 (relating to 
                unlawful acts), or subsection (b), (c), (g), 
                (h), (k), (l), (m), or (n) of section 924 
                (relating to penalties), section 930 (relating 
                to possession of firearms and dangerous weapons 
                in Federal facilities), section 931 (relating 
                to purchase, ownership, or possession of body 
                armor by violent felons), sections 1028 and 
                1029 (relating to fraud and related activity in 
                connection with identification documents or 
                access devices), section 1952 (relating to 
                interstate and foreign travel or transportation 
                in aid of racketeering enterprises), section 
                1956 (relating to the laundering of monetary 
                instruments), section 1957 (relating to 
                engaging in monetary transactions in property 
                derived from specified unlawful activity), or 
                sections 2312 through 2315 (relating to 
                interstate transportation of stolen motor 
                vehicles or stolen property).
                  (E) Any conduct punishable under section 274 
                (relating to bringing in and harboring certain 
                aliens), section 277 (relating to aiding or 
                assisting certain aliens to enter the United 
                States), or section 278 (relating to 
                importation of alien for immoral purpose) of 
                the Immigration and Nationality Act.
          (3) Aggravated sexual abuse.--The term ``aggravated 
        sexual abuse'' means an offense that, if committed in 
        the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction would 
        be an offense under section 2241(a).
          (4) State.--The term ``State'' means each of the 
        several States of the United States, the District of 
        Columbia, and any commonwealth, territory, or 
        possession of the United States.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


CHAPTER 44--FIREARMS

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


Sec. 924. Penalties

  (a) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

  (c)(1)(A) Except to the extent that a greater minimum 
sentence is otherwise provided by this subsection or by any 
other provision of law, any person who, during and in relation 
to any crime of violence or drug trafficking crime (including a 
crime of violence or drug trafficking crime that provides for 
an enhanced punishment if committed by the use of a deadly or 
dangerous weapon or device) for which the person may be 
prosecuted in a court of the United States, uses or carries a 
firearm, or who, in furtherance of any such crime, possesses a 
firearm, [shall] or conspires to commit any of the above acts, 
shall, for each instance in which the firearm is used, carried, 
or possessed, in addition to the punishment provided for such 
crime of violence or drug trafficking crime--
                  (i) be sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 
                not less than [5] 7 years;
                  [(ii) if the firearm is brandished, be 
                sentenced to a term of imprisonment of not less 
                than 7 years; and
                  [(iii) if the firearm is discharged, be 
                sentenced to a term of imprisonment of not less 
                than 10 years.]
                  (ii) if the firearm is discharged, be 
                sentenced to a term of imprisonment of not less 
                than 15 years; and
                  (iii) if the firearm is used to wound, 
                injure, or maim another person, be sentenced to 
                a term of imprisonment of not less than 20 
                years.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

  [(4) For purposes of this subsection, the term ``brandish'' 
means, with respect to a firearm, to display all or part of the 
firearm, or otherwise make the presence of the firearm known to 
another person, in order to intimidate that person, regardless 
of whether the firearm is directly visible to that person.]

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

  [(h) Whoever knowingly transfers a firearm, knowing that such 
firearm will be used to commit a crime of violence (as defined 
in subsection (c)(3)) or drug trafficking crime (as defined in 
subsection (c)(2)) shall be imprisoned not more than 10 years, 
fined in accordance with this title, or both.]
  (h) Whoever, in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce, 
knowingly transfers a firearm, knowing or intending that the 
firearm will be used to commit, or possessed in furtherance of, 
a crime of violence or drug trafficking crime, shall be fined 
under this title and imprisoned not less than 5 years nor more 
than 20 years.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

  [(o) A person who conspires to commit an offense under 
subsection (c) shall be imprisoned for not more than 20 years, 
fined under this title, or both; and if the firearm is a 
machinegun or destructive device, or is equipped with a firearm 
silencer or muffler, shall be imprisoned for any term of years 
or life.]

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


                          CHAPTER 51--HOMICIDE

Sec.
1111.  Murder
     * * * * * * *
1123.  Use of interstate commerce facilities in the commission of 
          multiple murder.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


Sec. 1123. Use of interstate commerce facilities in the commission of 
                    multiple murder

  (a) In General.--Whoever travels in or causes another 
(including the intended victim) to travel in interstate or 
foreign commerce, or uses or causes another (including the 
intended victim) to use the mail or any facility of interstate 
or foreign commerce, or who conspires or attempts to do so, 
with intent that 2 or more intentional homicides be committed 
in violation of the laws of any State or the United States 
shall, in addition to being subject to a fine under this 
title--
          (1) if the offense results in the death of any 
        person, be sentenced to death or life in prison;
          (2) if the offense results is assault resulting in 
        serious bodily injury (as defined in section 1365), be 
        imprisoned for life or any term of years not less than 
        20; and
          (3) in any other case, be imprisoned for life or for 
        any term of years not less than 10.
  (b) Definition.--The term ``State'' means each of the several 
States of the United States, the District of Columbia, and any 
commonwealth, territory, or possession of the United States.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


                        CHAPTER 95--RACKETEERING

Sec.
1951.  Interference with commerce by threats or violence.
[1952.  Interstate and foreign travel or transportation in aid of 
          racketeering enterprises.]
1952.  Interstate or foreign commerce-related aid to racketeering.
     * * * * * * *
[1958.  Use of interstate commerce facilities in the commission of 
          murder-for-hire.]
1958. Use of interstate commerce facilities in the commission of murder-
          for-hire and other felony crimes of violence.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


[Sec. 1952. Interstate and foreign travel or transportation in aid of 
                    racketeering enterprises]

Sec. 1952. Interstate or foreign commerce-related aid to racketeering

  (a)(1) Whoever [travels in interstate or foreign commerce or 
uses the mail or any facility in interstate or foreign 
commerce, with intent to], in or affecting interstate or 
foreign commerce--
          [(1) distribute] (A) distributes the proceeds of any 
        unlawful activity; or
          [(2) commit] (B) commits any crime of violence to 
        further any unlawful activity; or
          [(3) otherwise promote, manage, establish, carry on, 
        or facilitate] (C) otherwise promotes, manages, 
        establishes, carries on, or facilitates the promotion, 
        management, establishment, or carrying on, of any 
        unlawful activity,
[and thereafter performs or attempts to perform--
          [(A) an act described in paragraph (1) or (3) shall 
        be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 5 
        years, or both; or
          [(B) an act described in paragraph (2) shall be fined 
        under this title, imprisoned for not more than 20 
        years, or both, and if death results shall be 
        imprisoned for any term of years or for life.]
or attempts or conspires to do so, shall be punished as 
provided in paragraph (2).
  (2) The punishment for an offense under this subsection is--
          (A) in the case of a violation of subparagraph (A) or 
        (C) of paragraph (1), a fine under this title and 
        imprisonment for not less than 5 nor more than 20 
        years; and
          (B) in the case of a violation of subparagraph (B) of 
        paragraph (1), a fine under this title and imprisonment 
        for not less than 10 nor more than 30 years, but if 
        death results the offender shall be sentenced to death, 
        or to imprisonment for any term of years or for life.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


Sec. 1956. Laundering of monetary instruments

  (a) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

  (c) As used in this section--
          (1) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

          (7) the term ``specified unlawful activity'' means--
                  (A) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

                  (D) an offense under section 32 (relating to 
                the destruction of aircraft), section 37 
                (relating to violence at international 
                airports), section 115 (relating to 
                influencing, impeding, or retaliating against a 
                Federal official by threatening or injuring a 
                family member), section 152 (relating to 
                concealment of assets; false oaths and claims; 
                bribery), section 175c (relating to the variola 
                virus), section 215 (relating to commissions or 
                gifts for procuring loans), section 351 
                (relating to congressional or Cabinet officer 
                assassination), any of sections 500 through 503 
                (relating to certain counterfeiting offenses), 
                section 513 (relating to securities of States 
                and private entities), section 521 (relating to 
                criminal street gang prosecutions), section 541 
                (relating to goods falsely classified), section 
                542 relating to entry of goods by means of 
                false statements), section 545 (relating to 
                smuggling goods into the United States), 
                section 549 (relating to removing goods from 
                Customs custody), section 641 (relating to 
                public money, property, or records), section 
                656 (relating to theft, embezzlement, or 
                misapplication by bank officer or employee), 
                section 657 (relating to lending, credit, and 
                insurance institutions), section 658 (relating 
                to property mortgaged or pledged to farm credit 
                agencies), section 666 (relating to theft or 
                bribery concerning programs receiving Federal 
                funds), section 793, 794, or 798 (relating to 
                espionage), section 831 (relating to prohibited 
                transactions involving nuclear materials), 
                section 844 (f) or (i) (relating to destruction 
                by explosives or fire of Government property or 
                property affecting interstate or foreign 
                commerce), section 875 (relating to interstate 
                communications), section 922(1) (relating to 
                the unlawful importation of firearms), section 
                924(n) (relating to firearms trafficking), 
                section 956 (relating to conspiracy to kill, 
                kidnap, maim, or injure certain property in a 
                foreign country), section 1005 (relating to 
                fraudulent bank entries), 1006 (relating to 
                fraudulent Federal credit institution entries), 
                1007 (relating to Federal Deposit Insurance 
                transactions), 1014 (relating to fraudulent 
                loan or credit applications), section 1030 
                (relating to computer fraud and abuse), 1032 
                (relating to concealment of assets from 
                conservator, receiver, or liquidating agent of 
                financial institution), section 1111 (relating 
                to murder), section 1114 (relating to murder of 
                United States law enforcement officials), 
                section 1116 (relating to murder of foreign 
                officials, official guests, or internationally 
                protected persons), section 1201 (relating to 
                kidnaping), section 1203 (relating to hostage 
                taking), section 1361 (relating to willful 
                injury of Government property), section 1363 
                (relating to destruction of property within the 
                special maritime and territorial jurisdiction), 
                section 1708 (theft from the mail), section 
                1751 (relating to Presidential assassination), 
                section 2113 or 2114 (relating to bank and 
                postal robbery and theft), section 2280 
                (relating to violence against maritime 
                navigation), section 2281 (relating to violence 
                against maritime fixed platforms), section 2319 
                (relating to copyright infringement), section 
                2320 (relating to trafficking in counterfeit 
                goods and services), section 2332 (relating to 
                terrorist acts abroad against United States 
                nationals), section 2332a (relating to use of 
                weapons of mass destruction), section 2332b 
                (relating to international terrorist acts 
                transcending national boundaries), section 
                2332g (relating to missile systems designed to 
                destroy aircraft), section 2332h (relating to 
                radiological dispersal devices), or section 
                2339A or 2339B (relating to providing material 
                support to terrorists) of this title, section 
                46502 of title 49, United States Code, a felony 
                violation of the Chemical Diversion and 
                Trafficking Act of 1988 (relating to precursor 
                and essential chemicals), section 590 of the 
                Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1590) (relating 
                to aviation smuggling), section 422 of the 
                Controlled Substances Act (relating to 
                transportation of drug paraphernalia), section 
                38(c) (relating to criminal violations) of the 
                Arms Export Control Act, section 11 (relating 
                to violations) of the Export Administration Act 
                of 1979, section 206 (relating to penalties) of 
                the International Emergency Economic Powers 
                Act, section 16 (relating to offenses and 
                punishment) of the Trading with the Enemy Act, 
                any felony violation of section 15 of the Food 
                Stamp Act of 1977 (relating to food stamp 
                fraud) involving a quantity of coupons having a 
                value of not less than $5,000, any violation of 
                section 543(a)(1) of the Housing Act of 1949 
                (relating to equity skimming), any felony 
                violation of the Foreign Agents Registration 
                Act of 1938, any felony violation of the 
                Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, or section 92 of 
                the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (42 U.S.C. 2122) 
                (relating to prohibitions governing atomic 
                weapons)

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


[Sec. 1958. Use of interstate commerce facilities in the commission of 
                    murder-for-hire]

Sec. 1958. Use of interstate commerce facilities in the commission of 
                    murder-for-hire and other felony crimes of violence

  (a) Whoever travels in or causes another (including the 
intended victim) to travel in interstate or foreign commerce, 
or uses or causes another (including the intended victim) to 
use the mail or any facility of interstate or foreign commerce, 
with intent that a murder or other crime of violence, 
punishable by imprisonment for more than one year, be committed 
in violation of the laws of any State or the United States as 
consideration for the receipt of, or as consideration for a 
promise or agreement to pay, anything of pecuniary value, or 
who conspires to do so, [shall be fined under this title or 
imprisoned for not more than ten years, or both; and if 
personal injury results, shall be fined under this title or 
imprisoned for not more than twenty years, or both; and if 
death results, shall be punished by death or life imprisonment, 
or shall be fined not more than $250,000, or both.] shall, in 
addition to being subject to a fine under this title
          (1) if the crime of violence or conspiracy results in 
        the death of any person, be sentenced to death or life 
        in prison;
          (2) if the crime of violence is kidnapping, 
        aggravated sexual abuse (as defined in section 521), or 
        maiming, or a conspiracy to commit such a crime of 
        violence, be imprisoned for life or any term of years 
        not less than 30;
          (3) if the crime of violence is an assault, or a 
        conspiracy to assault, that results in serious bodily 
        injury (as defined in section 1365), be imprisoned for 
        life or any term of years not less than 20; and
          (4) in any other case, be imprisoned for life or for 
        any term of years not less than 10.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


Sec. 1959. Violent crimes in aid of racketeering activity

  [(a) Whoever, as consideration for the receipt of, or as 
consideration for a promise or agreement to pay, anything of 
pecuniary value from an enterprise engaged in racketeering 
activity, or for the purpose of gaining entrance to or 
maintaining or increasing position in an enterprise engaged in 
racketeering activity, murders, kidnaps, maims, assaults with a 
dangerous weapon, commits assault resulting in serious bodily 
injury upon, or threatens to commit a crime of violence against 
any individual in violation of the laws of any State or the 
United States, or attempts or conspires so to do, shall be 
punished--
          [(1) for murder, by death or life imprisonment, or a 
        fine under this title, or both; and for kidnapping, by 
        imprisonment for any term of years or for life, or a 
        fine under this title, or both;
          [(2) for maiming, by imprisonment for not more than 
        thirty years or a fine under this title, or both;
          [(3) for assault with a dangerous weapon or assault 
        resulting in serious bodily injury, by imprisonment for 
        not more than twenty years or a fine under this title, 
        or both;
          [(4) for threatening to commit a crime of violence, 
        by imprisonment for not more than five years or a fine 
        under this title, or both;
          [(5) for attempting or conspiring to commit murder or 
        kidnapping, by imprisonment for not more than ten years 
        or a fine under this title, or both; and
          [(6) for attempting or conspiring to commit a crime 
        involving maiming, assault with a dangerous weapon, or 
        assault resulting in serious bodily injury, by 
        imprisonment for not more than three years or a fine of 
        under this title, or both.]
  (a) Whoever commits, or conspires, threatens, or attempts to 
commit, a crime of violence for the purpose of furthering the 
activities of an enterprise engaged in racketeering activity, 
or for the purpose of gaining entrance to or maintaining or 
increasing position in, such an enterprise, shall, unless the 
death penalty is otherwise imposed, in addition and consecutive 
to the punishment provided for any other violation of this 
chapter and in addition to being subject to a fine under this 
title--
          (1) if the crime of violence results in the death of 
        any person, be sentenced to death or life in prison;
          (2) if the crime of violence is kidnapping, 
        aggravated sexual abuse (as defined in section 521), or 
        maiming, be imprisoned for life or any term of years 
        not less than 30;
          (3) if the crime of violence is assault resulting in 
        serious bodily injury (as defined in section 1365), be 
        imprisoned for life or for any term of years not less 
        than 20; and
          (4) in any other case, be imprisoned for life or for 
        any term of years not less than 10.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

  (c) A prosecution for a violation of this section may be 
brought in--
          (1) the judicial district in which the crime of 
        violence occurred; or
          (2) any judicial district in which racketeering 
        activity of the enterprise occurred.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


CHAPTER 96--RACKETEER INFLUENCED AND CORRUPT ORGANIZATIONS

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


Sec. 1961. Definitions

  As used in this chapter--
          (1) ``racketeering activity'' means (A) any act or 
        threat involving murder, kidnapping, gambling, arson, 
        robbery, bribery, extortion, dealing in obscene matter, 
        or dealing in a controlled substance or listed chemical 
        (as defined in section 102 of the Controlled Substances 
        Act), which is chargeable under State law, or would 
        have been so chargeable if the act or threat had not 
        been committed in Indian country (as defined in section 
        1151) or in any other area of exclusive Federal 
        jurisdiction, and punishable by imprisonment for more 
        than one year; (B) any act which is indictable under 
        any of the following provisions of title 18, United 
        States Code: Section 201 (relating to bribery), section 
        224 (relating to sports bribery), sections 471, 472, 
        and 473 (relating to counterfeiting), section 659 
        (relating to theft from interstate shipment) if the act 
        indictable under section 659 is felonious, section 664 
        (relating to embezzlement from pension and welfare 
        funds), sections 891-894 (relating to extortionate 
        credit transactions), section 1028 (relating to fraud 
        and related activity in connection with identification 
        documents), section 1029 (relating to fraud and related 
        activity in connection with access devices), section 
        1084 (relating to the transmission of gambling 
        information), section 1123 (relating to interstate 
        murder), section 1341 (relating to mail fraud), section 
        1343 (relating to wire fraud), section 1344 (relating 
        to financial institution fraud), section 1425 (relating 
        to the procurement of citizenship or nationalization 
        unlawfully), section 1426 (relating to the reproduction 
        of naturalization or citizenship papers), section 1427 
        (relating to the sale of naturalization or citizenship 
        papers), sections 1461-1465 (relating to obscene 
        matter), section 1503 (relating to obstruction of 
        justice), section 1510 (relating to obstruction of 
        criminal investigations), section 1511 (relating to the 
        obstruction of State or local law enforcement), section 
        1512 (relating to tampering with a witness, victim, or 
        an informant), section 1513 (relating to retaliating 
        against a witness, victim, or an informant), section 
        1542 (relating to false statement in application and 
        use of passport), section 1543 (relating to forgery or 
        false use of passport), section 1544 (relating to 
        misuse of passport), section 1546 (relating to fraud 
        and misuse of visas, permits, and other documents), 
        sections 1581-1591 (relating to peonage, slavery, and 
        trafficking in persons)., section 1951 (relating to 
        interference with commerce, robbery, or extortion), 
        section 1952 (relating to racketeering), section 1953 
        (relating to interstate transportation of wagering 
        paraphernalia), section 1954 (relating to unlawful 
        welfare fund payments), section 1955 (relating to the 
        prohibition of illegal gambling businesses), section 
        1956 (relating to the laundering of monetary 
        instruments), section 1957 (relating to engaging in 
        monetary transactions in property derived from 
        specified unlawful activity), section 1958 (relating to 
        use of interstate commerce facilities in the commission 
        of murder-for-hire), sections 2251, 2251A, 2252, and 
        2260 (relating to sexual exploitation of children), 
        sections 2312 and 2313 (relating to interstate 
        transportation of stolen motor vehicles), sections 2314 
        and 2315 (relating to interstate transportation of 
        stolen property) , section 2318 (relating to 
        trafficking in counterfeit labels for phonorecords, 
        computer programs or computer program documentation or 
        packaging and copies of motion pictures or other 
        audiovisual works), section 2319 (relating to criminal 
        infringement of a copyright), section 2319A (relating 
        to unauthorized fixation of and trafficking in sound 
        recordings and music videos of live musical 
        performances), section 2320 (relating to trafficking in 
        goods or services bearing counterfeit marks), section 
        2321 (relating to trafficking in certain motor vehicles 
        or motor vehicle parts), sections 2341-2346 (relating 
        to trafficking in contraband cigarettes), sections 
        2421-24 (relating to white slave traffic), sections 
        175-178 (relating to biological weapons), sections 229-
        F (relating to chemical weapons), section 831 (relating 
        to nuclear materials),(C) any act which is indictable 
        under title 29, United States Code, section 186 
        (dealing with restrictions on payments and loans to 
        labor organizations) or section 501(c) (relating to 
        embezzlement from union funds), (D) any offense 
        involving fraud connected with a case under title 11 
        (except a case under section 157 of this title), fraud 
        in the sale of securities, or the felonious 
        manufacture, importation, receiving, concealment, 
        buying, selling, or otherwise dealing in a controlled 
        substance or listed chemical (as defined in section 102 
        of the Controlled Substances Act), punishable under any 
        law of the United States, (E) any act which is 
        indictable under the Currency and Foreign Transactions 
        Reporting Act, (F) any act which is indictable under 
        the Immigration and Nationality Act, section 274 
        (relating to bringing in and harboring certain aliens), 
        section 277 (relating to aiding or assisting certain 
        aliens to enter the United States), or section 278 
        (relating to importation of alien for immoral purpose) 
        if the act indictable under such section of such Act 
        was committed for the purpose of financial gain, or (G) 
        any act that is indictable under any provision listed 
        in section 2332b(g)(5)(B).

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


CHAPTER 103--ROBBERY AND BURGLARY

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


Sec. 2119. Motor vehicles

  Whoever[, with the intent to cause death or serious bodily 
harm] takes a motor vehicle that has been transported, shipped, 
or received in interstate or foreign commerce from the person 
or presence of another by force and violence or by 
intimidation, or attempts or conspires to do so, shall--
          (1) be fined under this title or imprisoned not more 
        than [15] 20 years, or both,
          (2) if serious bodily injury (as defined in section 
        1365 of this title, including any conduct that, if the 
        conduct occurred in the special maritime and 
        territorial jurisdiction of the United States, would 
        violate section 2241 or 2242 of this title) results, be 
        fined under this title [or imprisoned not more than 25 
        years, or both] and imprisoned not less than 10 years 
        nor more than 30 years, and

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


PART II--CRIMINAL PROCEDURE

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


CHAPTER 207--RELEASE AND DETENTION PENDING JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


Sec. 3142. Release or detention of a defendant pending trial

  (a) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

  (e) Detention.--If, after a hearing pursuant to the 
provisions of subsection (f) of this section, the judicial 
officer finds that no condition or combination of conditions 
will reasonably assure the appearance of the person as required 
and the safety of any other person and the community, such 
judicial officer shall order the detention of the person before 
trial. In a case described in subsection (f)(1) of this 
section, a rebuttable presumption arises that no condition or 
combination of conditions will reasonably assure the safety of 
any other person and the community if such judicial officer 
finds that--
          (1) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

Subject to rebuttal by the person, it shall be presumed that no 
condition or combination of conditions will reasonably assure 
the appearance of the person as required and the safety of the 
community if the judicial officer finds that there is probable 
cause to believe that the person committed an offense under 
subsection (g)(1) (where the underlying conviction is a drug 
trafficking crime (as defined in section 924(c))), (g)(2), 
(g)(4), (g)(5), (g)(8), or (g)(9) of section 922, or a crime of 
violence, an offense for which a maximum term of imprisonment 
of ten years or more is prescribed in the Controlled Substances 
Act (21 U.S.C. 801 et seq.), the Controlled Substances Import 
and Export Act (21 U.S.C. 951 et seq.), or the Maritime Drug 
Law Enforcement Act (46 U.S.C. App. 1901 et seq.), an offense 
under section 924(c), 956(a), or 2332b of this title, or an 
offense listed in section 2332b(g)(5)(B) of title 18, United 
States Code, for which a maximum term of imprisonment of 10 
years or more is prescribed or an offense involving a minor 
victim under section 1201, 1591, 2241, 2242, 2244(a)(1), 2245, 
2251, 2251A, 2252(a)(1), 2252(a)(2), 2252(a)(3), 2252A(a)(1), 
2252A(a)(2), 2252A(a)(3), 2252A(a)(4), 2260, 2421, 2422, 2423, 
or 2425 of this title.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

  (g) Factors To Be Considered.--The judicial officer shall, in 
determining whether there are conditions of release that will 
reasonably assure the appearance of the person as required and 
the safety of any other person and the community, take into 
account the available information concerning--
          [(1) the nature and circumstances of the offense 
        charged, including whether the offense is a crime of 
        violence, or an offense listed in section 
        2332b(g)(5)(B) for which a maximum term of imprisonment 
        of 10 years or more is prescribed or involves a 
        narcotic drug;]
          (1) the nature and circumstances of the offense 
        charged, including whether the offense is a crime of 
        violence, or involves a controlled substance, firearm, 
        explosive, or destructive devise;

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


CHAPTER 211--JURISDICTION AND VENUE

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


[Sec. 3235. Venue in capital cases

  [The trial of offenses punishable with death shall be had in 
the county where the offense was committed, where that can be 
done without great inconvenience.]

Sec. 3235. Venue in capital cases

  (a) The trial for any offense punishable by death shall be 
held in the district where the offense was committed or in any 
district in which the offense began, continued, or was 
completed.
  (b) If the offense, or related conduct, under subsection (a) 
involves activities which affect interstate or foreign 
commerce, or the importation of an object or person into the 
United States, such offense may be prosecuted in any district 
in which those activities occurred.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


                        CHAPTER 213--LIMITATIONS

Sec.
3281.  Capital offenses.
     * * * * * * *
3298.  Violent crime offenses.
     * * * * * * *

Sec. 3298. Violent crime offenses

  No person shall be prosecuted, tried, or punished for any 
noncapital felony, crime of violence, including any 
racketeering activity or gang crime which involves any crime of 
violence, unless the indictment is found or the information is 
instituted not later than 15 years after the date on which the 
alleged violation occurred or the continuing offense was 
completed.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


CHAPTER 227--SENTENCES

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


SUBCHAPTER D--IMPRISONMENT

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


Sec. 3582. Imposition of a sentence of imprisonment

  (a) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

  (d) Inclusion of an Order To Limit Criminal Association of 
Organized Crime and Drug Offenders.--The court, in imposing a 
sentence to a term of imprisonment upon a defendant convicted 
of a felony set forth in section 521 (criminal street gang 
prosecutions), in chapter 95 (racketeering) or 96 (racketeer 
influenced and corrupt organizations) of this title or in the 
Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act of 1970 (21 
U.S.C. 801 et seq.), or at any time thereafter upon motion by 
the Director of the Bureau of Prisons or a United States 
attorney, may include as a part of the sentence an order that 
requires that the defendant not associate or communicate with a 
[specified person, other than his attorney, upon] specified 
person upon a showing of probable cause to believe that 
association or communication with such person is for the 
purpose of enabling the defendant to control, manage, direct, 
finance, or otherwise participate in a criminal street gang or 
an illegal enterprise.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


CHAPTER 232--MISCELLANEOUS SENTENCING PROVISIONS

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


Sec. 3663. Order of restitution

  (a) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

  (c)(1) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

  (4) The court shall not make an award under this subsection 
if it appears likely that such award would interfere with a 
forfeiture under [chapter 46 or chapter 96 of this title] 
section 521, under chapter 46 or 96, or under the Controlled 
Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 801 et seq.).

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


PART IV--CORRECTION OF YOUTHFUL OFFENDERS

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


CHAPTER 403--JUVENILE DELINQUENCY

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


Sec. 5032. Delinquency proceedings in district courts; transfer for 
                    criminal prosecution

  A juvenile alleged to have committed an act of juvenile 
delinquency, other than a violation of law committed within the 
special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United 
States for which the maximum authorized term of imprisonment 
does not exceed six months, shall not be proceeded against in 
any court of the United States unless the Attorney General, 
after investigation, certifies to the appropriate district 
court of the United States that (1) the juvenile court or other 
appropriate court of a State does not have jurisdiction or 
refuses to assume jurisdiction over said juvenile with respect 
to such alleged act of juvenile delinquency, (2) the State does 
not have available programs and services adequate for the needs 
of juveniles, or (3) the offense charged is a crime of violence 
that is a felony or an offense described in section 401 of the 
Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 841), or section 1002(a), 
1003, 1005, 1009, or 1010(b)(1), (2), or (3) of the Controlled 
Substances Import and Export Act (21 U.S.C. 952(a), 953, 955, 
959, 960(b)(1), (2), (3)), section 922(x) or section 924(b), 
(g), or (h) of this title, and that there is a substantial 
Federal interest in the case or the offense to warrant the 
exercise of Federal jurisdiction.
  If the Attorney General does not so certify, such juvenile 
shall be surrendered to the appropriate legal authorities of 
such State. For purposes of this section, the term ``State'' 
includes a State of the United States, the District of 
Columbia, and any commonwealth, territory, or possession of the 
United States.
  If an alleged juvenile delinquent is not surrendered to the 
authorities of a State pursuant to this section, any 
proceedings against him shall be in an appropriate district 
court of the United States. For such purposes, the court may be 
convened at any time and place within the district, in chambers 
or otherwise. The Attorney General shall proceed by information 
or as authorized under section 3401(g) of this title, and no 
criminal prosecution shall be instituted for the alleged act of 
juvenile delinquency except as provided below.
  [A juvenile] Except as otherwise provided in this chapter, a 
juvenile who is alleged to have committed an act of juvenile 
delinquency and who is not surrendered to State authorities 
shall be proceeded against under this chapter unless he has 
requested in writing upon advice of counsel to be proceeded 
against [as an adult, except that, with] as an adult. With 
respect to a juvenile fifteen years and older alleged to have 
committed an act after his fifteenth birthday which if 
committed by an adult would be a felony that is a crime of 
violence or an offense described in section 401 of the 
Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 841), or section 1002(a), 
1005, or 1009 of the Controlled Substances Import and Export 
Act (21 U.S.C. 952(a), 955, 959), or section 922(x) of this 
title, or in section 924(b), (g), or (h) of this title, 
criminal prosecution on the basis of the alleged act may be 
begun by motion to transfer of the Attorney General in the 
appropriate district court of the United States, if such court 
finds, after hearing, such transfer would be in the interest of 
justice. In the application of the preceding sentence, if the 
crime of violence is an offense under section 113(a), 113(b), 
113(c), 1111, 1113, or, if the juvenile possessed a firearm 
during the offense, section 2111, 2113, 2241(a), or 2241(c), 
``thirteen'' shall be substituted for ``fifteen'' and 
``thirteenth'' shall be substituted for ``fifteenth''. 
Notwithstanding sections 1152 and 1153, no person subject to 
the criminal jurisdiction of an Indian tribal government shall 
be subject to the preceding sentence for any offense the 
Federal jurisdiction for which is predicated solely on Indian 
country (as defined in section 1151), and which has occurred 
within the boundaries of such Indian country, unless the 
governing body of the tribe has elected that the preceding 
sentence have effect over land and persons subject to its 
criminal jurisdiction. [However, a juvenile who is alleged to 
have committed an act after his sixteenth birthday which if 
committed by an adult would be a felony offense that has as an 
element thereof the use, attempted use, or threatened use of 
physical force against the person of another, or that, by its 
very nature, involves a substantial risk that physical force 
against the person of another may be used in committing the 
offense, or would be an offense described in section 32, 81, 
844(d), (e), (f), (h), (i) or 2275 of this title, subsection 
(b)(1)(A), (B), or (C), (d), or (e) of section 401 of the 
Controlled Substances Act, or section 1002(a), 1003, 1009, or 
1010(b)(1), (2), or (3) of the Controlled Substances Import and 
Export Act (21 U.S.C. 952(a), 953, 959, 960(b)(1), (2), (3)), 
and who has previously been found guilty of an act which if 
committed by an adult would have been one of the offenses set 
forth in this paragraph or an offense in violation of a State 
felony statute that would have been such an offense if a 
circumstance giving rise to Federal jurisdiction had existed, 
shall be transferred to the appropriate district court of the 
United States for criminal prosecution.] The Attorney General 
may prosecute as an adult a juvenile who is alleged to have 
committed an act after that juvenile's 16th birthday which if 
committed by an adult would be a crime of violence that is a 
felony, an offense described in subsection (d), (i), (j), (k), 
(o), (p), (q), (u), or (x) of section 922 (relating to unlawful 
acts), or subsection (b), (c), (g), (h), (k), (l), (m), or (n) 
of section 924 (relating to penalties), section 930 (relating 
to possession of firearms and dangerous weapons in Federal 
facilities), or section 931 (relating to purchase, ownership, 
or possession of body armor by violent felons). The decision 
whether or not to prosecute a juvenile as an adult under the 
immediately preceding sentence is not subject to judicial 
review in any court. In a prosecution under that sentence, the 
juvenile may be prosecuted and convicted as an adult for any 
other offense which is properly joined under the Federal Rules 
of Criminal Procedure, and may also be convicted as an adult of 
any lesser included offense.
  Evidence of the following factors shall be considered, and 
findings with regard to each factor shall be made in the 
record, in assessing whether a transfer would be in the 
interest of justice: the age and social background of the 
juvenile; the nature of the alleged offense; the extent and 
nature of the juvenile's prior delinquency record; the 
juvenile's present intellectual development and psychological 
maturity; the nature of past treatment efforts and the 
juvenile's response to such efforts; the availability of 
programs designed to treat the juvenile's behavioral problems. 
In considering the nature of the offense, as required by this 
paragraph, the court shall consider the extent to which the 
juvenile played a leadership role in an organization, or 
otherwise influenced other persons to take part in criminal 
activities, involving the use or distribution of controlled 
substances or firearms. Such a factor, if found to exist, shall 
weigh in favor of a transfer to adult status, but the absence 
of this factor shall not preclude such a transfer.
  Reasonable notice of the transfer hearing shall be given to 
the juvenile, his parents, guardian, or custodian and to his 
counsel. The juvenile shall be assisted by counsel during the 
transfer hearing, and at every other critical stage of the 
proceedings.
  Once a juvenile has entered a plea of guilty or the 
proceeding has reached the stage that evidence has begun to be 
taken with respect to a crime or an alleged act of juvenile 
delinquency subsequent criminal prosecution or juvenile 
proceedings based upon such alleged act of delinquency shall be 
barred.
  Statements made by a juvenile prior to or during a transfer 
hearing under this section shall not be admissible at 
subsequent criminal prosecutions.
  Whenever a juvenile transferred to district court under this 
section is not convicted of the crime upon which the transfer 
was based or another crime which would have warranted transfer 
had the juvenile been initially charged with that crime, 
further proceedings concerning the juvenile shall be conducted 
pursuant to the provisions of this chapter.
  A juvenile shall not be transferred to adult prosecution nor 
shall a hearing be held under section 5037 (disposition after a 
finding of juvenile delinquency) until any prior juvenile court 
records of such juvenile have been received by the court, or 
the clerk of the juvenile court has certified in writing that 
the juvenile has no prior record, or that the juvenile's record 
is unavailable and why it is unavailable.
  Whenever a juvenile is adjudged delinquent pursuant to the 
provisions of this chapter, the specific acts which the 
juvenile has been found to have committed shall be described as 
part of the official record of the proceedings and part of the 
juvenile's official record.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

                              ----------                              


      COMPREHENSIVE DRUG ABUSE PREVENTION AND CONTROL ACT OF 1970

                           table of contents

                   title ii--control and enforcement

     * * * * * * *

                     Part D--Offenses and Penalties

Sec. 401. Prohibited acts A--penalties.
     * * * * * * *
Sec. 424. Murder and other violent crimes committed during and in 
          relation to a drug trafficking crime.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


                   TITLE II--CONTROL AND ENFORCEMENT

                              short title

  Sec. 100. This title may be cited as the ``Controlled 
Substances Act''.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


Part D--Offenses and Penalties

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


 MURDER AND OTHER VIOLENT CRIMES COMMITTED DURING AND IN RELATION TO A 
                         DRUG TRAFFICKING CRIME

  Sec. 424. (a) In General.--Whoever commits, or conspires, or 
attempts to commit, a crime of violence during and in relation 
to a drug trafficking crime, shall, unless the death penalty is 
otherwise imposed, in addition and consecutive to the 
punishment provided for the drug trafficking crime and in 
addition to being subject to a fine under this title--
          (1) if the crime of violence results in the death of 
        any person, be sentenced to death or life in prison;
          (2) if the crime of violence is kidnapping, 
        aggravated sexual abuse (as defined in section 521), or 
        maiming, be imprisoned for life or any term of years 
        not less than 30;
          (3) if the crime of violence is assault resulting in 
        serious bodily injury (as defined in section 1365), be 
        imprisoned for life or any term of years not less than 
        20; and
          (4) in any other case, be imprisoned for life or for 
        any term of years not less than 10.
  (b) Venue.--A prosecution for a violation of this section may 
be brought in--
          (1) the judicial district in which the murder or 
        other crime of violence occurred; or
          (2) any judicial district in which the drug 
        trafficking crime may be prosecuted.
  (c) Definitions.--As used in this section--
          (1) the term ``crime of violence'' has the meaning 
        given that term in section 16 of title 18, United 
        States Code; and
          (2) the term ``drug trafficking crime'' has the 
        meaning given that term in section 924(c)(2) of title 
        18, United States Code.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

                              ----------                              


               RULE 804 OF THE FEDERAL RULES OF EVIDENCE

Rule 804. Hearsay Exceptions; declarant unavailable

  (a) * * *
  (b) Hearsay exceptions.--The following are not excluded by 
the hearsay rule if the declarant is unavailable as a witness:
          (1) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

          [(6) Forfeiture by wrongdoing.--A statement offered 
        against a party that has engaged or acquiesced in 
        wrongdoing that was intended to, and did, procure the 
        unavailability of the declarant as a witness.]
          (6) Forfeiture by wrongdoing.--A statement offered 
        against a party who has engaged or acquiesced in 
        wrongdoing, or who could reasonably foresee such 
        wrongdoing would take place, if the wrongdoing was 
        intended to, and did, procure the unavailability of the 
        declarant as a witness.
                              ----------                              


         VIOLENT CRIME CONTROL AND LAW ENFORCEMENT ACT OF 1994



           *       *       *       *       *       *       *
TITLE III--CRIME PREVENTION

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


Subtitle Q--Community-Based Justice Grants for Prosecutors

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


SEC. 31702. USE OF FUNDS.

  Grants made by the Attorney General under this section shall 
be used--
          (1) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

          (3) to fund programs that coordinate criminal justice 
        resources with educational, social service, and 
        community resources to develop and deliver violence 
        prevention programs, including mediation and other 
        conflict resolution methods, treatment, counseling, 
        educational, and recreational programs that create 
        alternatives to criminal activity; [and]
          (4) in rural States (as defined in section 1501(b) of 
        title I of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets 
        Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 3796bb(B)), to fund cooperative 
        efforts between State and local prosecutors, victim 
        advocacy and assistance groups, social and community 
        service providers, and law enforcement agencies to 
        investigate and prosecute child abuse cases, treat 
        youthful victims of child abuse, and work in 
        cooperation with the community to develop education and 
        prevention strategies directed toward the issues with 
        which such entities are concerned[.];
          (5) to hire additional prosecutors to--
                  (A) allow more cases to be prosecuted; and
                  (B) reduce backlogs;
          (6) to fund technology, equipment, and training for 
        prosecutors and law enforcement in order to increase 
        accurate identification of gang members and violent 
        offenders, and to maintain databases with such 
        information to facilitate coordination among law 
        enforcement and prosecutors; and
          (7) to fund technology, equipment, and training for 
        prosecutors to increase the accurate identification and 
        successful prosecution of young violent offenders.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


[SEC. 31707. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

  [There are authorized to be appropriated to carry out this 
subtitle--
          [(1) $7,000,000 for fiscal year 1996;
          [(2) $10,000,000 for fiscal year 1997;
          [(3) $10,000,000 for fiscal year 1998;
          [(4) $11,000,000 for fiscal year 1999; and
          [(5) $12,000,000 for fiscal year 2000.]

SEC. 31707. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

  There are authorized to be appropriated $20,000,000 for each 
of the fiscal years 2006 through 2010 to carry out this 
subtitle.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


                           Markup Transcript



                            BUSINESS MEETING

                       WEDNESDAY, APRIL 13, 2005

                  House of Representatives,
                                Committee on the Judiciary,
                                                    Washington, DC.
    The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:03 a.m., in 
Room 2141, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. F. James 
Sensenbrenner, Jr. [Chairman of the Committee] presiding.
    [Intervening business.]
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The next item on the agenda is the 
adoption of H.R. 1279, the ``Gang Deterrence and Community 
Protection Act.'' The Chair recognizes the gentleman from North 
Carolina, Mr. Coble, Chairman of the Subcommittee on Crime, 
Terrorism, and Homeland Security, for a motion. The gentleman 
from North Carolina.
    Mr. Coble. I move the--the Subcommittee on Crime, 
Terrorism, and Homeland Security reports favorably, Mr. 
Chairman, H.R. 1279, the ``Gang Deterrence and Community 
Protection Act of 2005.'' This is an important piece of 
legislation that was marked up yesterday.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Does the gentleman move its 
favorable recommendation to the House?
    Mr. Coble. I do indeed.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Without objection, H.R. 1279 will 
be considered as read and open for amendment at any point.
    [The bill, H.R. 1279, follows:]
      
      

  
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>

      
      

  
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>

      
      

  
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>

      
      

  
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>

      
      

  
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>

      
      

  
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>

      
      

  
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>

      
      

  
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>

      
      

  
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>

      
      

  
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>

      
      

  
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>

      
      

  
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>

      
      

  
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>

      
      

  
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>

      
      

  
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>

      
      

  
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>

      
      

  
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>

      
      

  
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>

      
      

  
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>

      
      

  
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>

      
      

  
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>

      
      

  
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>

      
      

  
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>

      
      

  
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>

      
      

  
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>

      
      

  
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>

    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The Chair recognizes the gentleman 
from North Carolina to strike the last word.
    Mr. Coble. I thank the Chairman.
    On April the 5th, Mr. Chairman, the Subcommittee held a 
hearing on the bill, which was introduced by Representative 
Forbes, Representative Wolf, and other members of the Virginia 
delegation. The hearing examined the growing problem of gang 
violence in our country and the need to address the problem.
    The problem of gang violence in America, Mr. Chairman and 
colleagues, is not a new one, nor is it a problem that is 
limited to major urban areas, as was once the general belief. 
Gangs have now invaded smaller communities, even penetrating 
into rural areas of our country.
    Mr. Chairman, I was not able to attend the hearing, which 
was chaired by Representative Forbes, and this is his bill, and 
with the Chair's permission I would like for Mr. Forbes to 
handle the bill.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Does the gentleman yield the 
balance of his time to the gentleman from Virginia?
    Mr. Coble. I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman 
from Virginia.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentleman from Virginia?
    Mr. Forbes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Chairman, we have a substitute that we're offering, if 
the Chair would like to recognize that at this particular point 
in time.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The Chair wishes to have two 
opening statements on each side, and then the Chair will 
recognize the gentleman from Virginia for purposes of a 
substitute after Mr. Scott is done with his opening statement.
    Mr. Forbes. Then, Mr. Chairman, I would simply echo what 
the distinguished Chairman of the Crime Subcommittee has said 
in that the crime problem in the United States has grown 
dramatically over the last several years. It is totally 
different than the old West Side Story that we used to think 
about where we had two criminal gangs fighting with each other. 
Today there are approximately 750,000 to 850,000 criminal gang 
members in the United States. To put that in perspective, if it 
was an army, it would be the sixth largest army in the world, 
and it is about a number equal to the active-duty members we 
have in the army and navy combined.
    In addition, they have changed enormously. Many of these 
people are equipped to do guerrilla warfare. They have boards 
of directors. They are operating across the country. You will 
see from the headlines that we have that they're cutting off 
people's arms, they're cutting out the larynxes of individuals, 
they're murdering people, they're raping people, and they're 
spreading all across the country.
    Mr. Chairman, one of the things that we are recognizing is 
that the only way we're going to be able to deal with this 
problem is to reach out with a bill like this which brings the 
resources of the Federal Government, the State government, and 
the local government into the same organized activity that we 
have when we broke up organized crime in the United States. We 
think the benefit of this bill is that it reaches at the heart 
of the criminal network and rips that criminal gang network out 
so it's not continuing to recruit individuals and to make this 
gang problem more severe.
    Mr. Chairman, I am looking forward to the debate on this 
bill and the questions that my friends from the other side I'm 
sure will have in support of this great piece of legislation.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentleman from Virginia, Mr. 
Scott?
    Mr. Scott. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Chairman, sorry to see this markup of H.R. 1279, the 
so-called ``Gang Deterrence and Community Protection Act of 
2005.'' This bill is in no way like the last bill we considered 
to address crime and violence by youth. That bill was 
cosponsored by all of the Members of the Subcommittee on Crime 
and was based on the combined wisdom and expertise of law 
enforcement, juvenile court judges and administrators, 
researchers, criminologists, and juvenile justice advocates 
along the entire political spectrum. That bill was full of 
collaborative efforts by local law enforcement officials aimed 
at addressing the problem caused by young people early when 
they first entered the system with sufficient sanctions and/or 
services to keep them on the straight and narrow; and if they 
do come back, to hit them with graduated sanctions and services 
to the extent required to address the problem.
    Unfortunately, after all this agreement, we failed the most 
important aspect of our agreement, to provide an adequate level 
of funding for the bill. While this Committee initially 
authorized $500 million a year, the House settled on $350 
million for the first year, but the most money we've been able 
to get appropriated for the bill was $55 million a year, about 
one-tenth of the amount we thought originally necessary.
    Now that we're seeing youth gang crime and violence rise, 
we're willing to abandon what we know and agreed upon but never 
funded to spend billions of dollars to prosecute and look up 
youth up under long mandatory--to lock up youth under long 
mandatory minimum sentences, which allowed no consideration for 
the relative roles of the crimes or the background of the 
offender.
    This bill is chock full of new mandatory minimum sentences 
ranging from a mandatory minimum of 10 years to mandatory life 
or death and other provisions which have been proven to be 
counterproductive in the fight against crime.
    For some time now, we have known that mandatory minimum 
sentences disrupt orderly proportionality in sentencing, 
discriminate against minorities, waste money, compared to 
sentencing schemes where the court can actually look at the 
seriousness of the crime, the offender's role in the crime, and 
the offender's background.
    The Judicial Conference of the United States, which sees 
the impact of mandatory minimums on an individual--on 
individual cases as well as on the criminal justice system as a 
whole has told us time and time again that mandatory sentences 
create more harm than good from any kind of rational 
evaluation. In its recent letter, the Conference told us that 
mandatory minimum sentences create the opposite of their 
intended effect. Far from fostering certainty in punishment 
mandatory minimums result in unwarranted sentencing 
disparities. Mandatory minimums treat dissimilar offenders in a 
similar manner, although those offenders can be quite different 
in respect to the seriousness of their conduct or their danger 
to society. And they require the sentencing court to impose the 
same sentence on offenders when sound policy and common sense 
call for reasonable differences in punishment.
    Both the Federal Judicial Center in its report entitled 
``The General Effects of Mandatory Minimum Prison Terms: A 
Longitudinal Study,'' and the Sentencing Commission in its 
study, ``Mandatory Minimum Penalties in the Federal Criminal 
Justice System,'' found that minorities were substantially more 
likely than whites under comparable circumstances to receive 
the mandatory minimum sentences. And the RAND Corporation 
recent report showed that mandatory minimum sentences are far 
less effective than either regular sentences or drug treatment 
in reducing drug-related crime and, thus, far more costlier 
than either.
    Just how costly this bill will be is yet to be seen, but 
the Sentencing Commission has estimated a need for an 
additional 23,600 prison beds over the next 10 years. That 
would be about $2 billion in addition to the annual upkeep of 
about $750 million based on $30,000 per inmate per year. And 
that's over and above what's already scheduled to be spent for 
prison construction and upkeep.
    For proven evidence-based juvenile crime prevention and 
intervention services, we're spending about half, less than 
$400 million annually, of the annual prison upkeep; this bill 
will cost in addition to what we're already paying. The worst 
problem with the bill is that it provides for more juveniles 
tried as adults. For years now, every study of juveniles tried 
as adults has shown that such juveniles commit more crimes, and 
more violent crimes in particular, when they're released. It is 
easy to understand when you consider the juveniles who go to 
prison will have as their role models hard-core murderers, 
rapists, and robbers, whereas in juvenile detention they're 
required to receive education and training.
    Mr. Chairman, an additional minute?
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Without objection.
    Mr. Scott. Counseling and drug treatment and other 
assistance. On March 1st of this year, coincidentally the same 
day H.R. 1279 was introduced, the Coalition of Juvenile Justice 
released its study, ``Childhood on Trial: The Failure of Trying 
and Sentencing Youth in Adult Criminal Court,'' showed even 
more definitively that trying juveniles as adults increases 
rather than decreases the prospects that they will reoffend 
when released, and the more serious--and with the more serious 
offenses as compared to youths tried in juvenile court. Already 
without this bill, juveniles who commit serious violent 
offenses are already tried as adults. The difference with this 
bill is that the judge can look at them individually in most 
cases and determine which ones will not require such treatment 
and put them in the juvenile justice system where they will be 
less likely to commit an additional crime.
    This bill eliminates individual considerations in favor of 
sound bites, and I hope we will defeat the bill and get back to 
doing what we know works in dealing with juvenile crime.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The time of the gentleman has 
expired.
    Without objection, all Members may include opening 
statements in the record at this point.
    The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Virginia for 
purposes of offering a substitute amendment.
    Mr. Forbes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Does the gentleman from Virginia 
have an amendment at the desk?
    Mr. Forbes. Yes, sir, I do, Mr. Chairman.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The clerk will report the 
amendment.
    The Clerk. Amendment in the nature of a substitute to H.R. 
1279, offered by Mr. Forbes of Virginia----
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Without objection, the amendment in 
the nature of a substitute is considered as read.
    [The amendment in the nature of a substitute follows:]
      
      

  
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>

      
      

  
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>

      
      

  
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>

      
      

  
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>

      
      

  
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>

      
      

  
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>

      
      

  
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>

      
      

  
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>

      
      

  
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>

      
      

  
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>

      
      

  
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>

      
      

  
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>

      
      

  
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>

      
      

  
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>

      
      

  
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>

      
      

  
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>

      
      

  
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>

      
      

  
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>

      
      

  
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>

      
      

  
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>

      
      

  
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>

      
      

  
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>

      
      

  
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>

      
      

  
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>

      
      

  
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>

      
      

  
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>

      
      

  
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>

    Chairman Sensenbrenner. And the gentleman from Virginia is 
recognized for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Forbes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Chairman, I'm offering a substitute amendment to H.R. 
1279, which incorporates several technical changes to the 
original bill as introduced, and I'd like to thank Congressman 
Wolf for his help in this bill, and also Congressman Gallegly, 
who has been working on the gang problem for years now and his 
input in helping to get this bill forward. Let me briefly 
outline the technical changes that the substitute makes.
    First, in Sections 101 and 105 relating to gang crimes and 
violent crimes and aid of racketeering enterprise, I've 
substituted ``for the purpose of'' for ``in order to'' to 
ensure that those provisions are broadly construed to address 
the prohibited motive for gang crime or violent crime in aid of 
racketeering enterprise.
    Second, Section 101 is revised to add civil forfeiture of 
property used or acquired in relation to gang crimes, added 
gang crimes as a predicate money-laundering offense, and added 
some predicate firearms offenses when committed in relation to 
furthering gangs' illegal activities; modified Section 103(b) 
to add an interstate commerce element to that offense.
    Fourth, we modified Section 104, the murder for hire 
statute, to conspiracies to commit kidnapping, aggravated 
sexual assault, or maiming.
    Five, modified Section 105 to broaden venue for 
prosecutions of VICAR cases.
    And, six, modified Section 109 relating to offenses for 
which a rebuttable presumption shall exist for detention prior 
to trial.
    Mr. Chairman, I move the substitute amendment, and I yield 
back my time.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Are there any second-degree 
amendments to the amendment in the nature of a substitute? The 
gentleman from California, Mr. Schiff?
    Mr. Schiff. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment in the nature 
of a substitute to the amendment in the nature of a substitute.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The clerk will report the amendment 
in the nature of a substitute to the amendment in the nature of 
a substitute.
    The Clerk. Amendment in the nature of a substitute to the 
amendment in the nature of a substitute to H.R. 1279, offered 
by Mr. Schiff of California. Strike all after the enacting----
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Without objection, the amendment in 
the nature of a substitute to the amendment in the nature of a 
substitute is considered as read.
    [The amendment in the nature of a substitute follows:]
      
      

  
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>

      
      

  
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>

      
      

  
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>

      
      

  
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>

      
      

  
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>

      
      

  
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>

      
      

  
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>

      
      

  
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>

      
      

  
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>

      
      

  
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>

      
      

  
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>

      
      

  
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>

      
      

  
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>

      
      

  
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>

      
      

  
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>

      
      

  
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>

      
      

  
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>

      
      

  
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>

      
      

  
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>

      
      

  
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>

      
      

  
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>

      
      

  
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>

      
      

  
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>

      
      

  
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>

      
      

  
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>

      
      

  
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>

      
      

  
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>

      
      

  
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>

      
      

  
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>

      
      

  
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>

      
      

  
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>

      
      

  
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>

      
      

  
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>

      
      

  
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>

      
      

  
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>

      
      

  
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>

      
      

  
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>

      
      

  
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>

      
      

  
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>

      
      

  
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>

      
      

  
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>

      
      

  
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>

      
      

  
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>

      
      

  
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>

      
      

  
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>

      
      

  
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>

      
      

  
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>

      
      

  
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>

      
      

  
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>

      
      

  
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>

      
      

  
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>

      
      

  
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>

      
      

  
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>

      
      

  
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>

      
      

  
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>

      
      

  
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>

      
      

  
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>

      
      

  
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>

      
      

  
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>

      
      

  
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>

      
      

  
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>

      
      

  
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>

      
      

  
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>

      
      

  
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>

      
      

  
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>

    Chairman Sensenbrenner. And the gentleman from California, 
Mr. Schiff, is recognized for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Schiff. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you and the 
Ranking Member and the Ranking Member of the Subcommittee for 
allowing me to take this up as the first amendment on the 
Democratic side of the aisle.
    Since my days as a prosecutor in California, I've been 
concerned with the growing threat posed by organized street 
gangs. I've also seen the destructive impact that street gangs 
continue to have on families, on our youth, and our 
communities. Unfortunately, gangs have strong links to youth in 
our country, taking a heavy toll on adolescent social 
development and life course experiences. An end result often is 
the continued involvement of criminal activity throughout life.
    For this reason, a couple months ago I introduced a 
bipartisan gang bill along with Representative Mary Bono, the 
Gang Prevention and Effective Deterrence Act of 2005. Our 
legislation represents a comprehensive effort to increase gang 
prosecution and prevention efforts. The bill is virtually 
identical to the bipartisan legislation that was reported out 
of the Senate Judiciary Committee in the 108th Congress and has 
since been reintroduced by Senators Feinstein, Hatch, Kyl, 
Cornyn, and Grassley.
    The gang problem is no longer a local issue but a national 
one requiring a national strategy. The Schiff-Bono bill is 
designed to facilitate this effort by bringing together 
Federal, State, and local law enforcement, providing them with 
new tools to combat gang violence, making available new funds 
to keep kids out of gangs to begin with. Street gangs are 
increasingly focusing on running full-service criminal 
enterprises in the neighborhoods where they reside, terrorizing 
those who live in the community. Some have shown increasing 
levels of sophistication, exhibiting characteristics common to 
organized crime, and will likely continue to expand their 
criminal enterprises in new ways and places throughout the 
country.
    This requires new and creative ways to attack the problem. 
In 2002, in the city of Los Angeles, it was announced that 
street gangs would be prosecuted in the same way that law 
enforcement brought down traditional organized crime figures 
using the Federal racketeering statute, RICO, to its full 
capacity. However, these racketeering laws were designed to 
prosecute organized crime with Mafia-style organizations in 
mind. The Schiff-Bono bill represented by this substitute would 
create a similar tool, but tailored specifically to violent 
street gangs by criminalizing violent crimes in furtherance of 
or in aid of criminal street gangs.
    The most lucrative criminal enterprise for street gangs has 
been the retail distribution of illicit narcotics. Our 
legislation would attack this problem by making murder and 
other violent crimes committed in connection with drug 
trafficking a Federal crime. And, unfortunately, gangs also 
have strong links to the youth in our country. The FBI has 
reported increasing numbers of youth involvement in gangs and 
the problem is getting worse.
    In order to effectively prosecute an entire gang, it is 
sometimes necessary to prosecute multiple defendants in the 
same case, including juvenile gang members. The Schiff-Bono 
bill in this substitute provides a limited reform of the 
juvenile justice system to facilitate Federal prosecution of 
16- and 17-year-old gang members who commit serious acts of 
violence. However, this substitute, unlike the other 
substitute, provides an important reverse waiver procedure 
whereby juvenile--the juvenile can petition the court for 
transfer back to juvenile status by establishing by a 
preponderance of the evidence that this is in the interest of 
justice. So our substitute would also allow the filing against 
16- and 17-year-old gang members who commit serious violent 
crimes, but it does allow the court to have some role in a 
reverse waiver procedure.
    Our legislation also provides resources to bolster the 
fight against gangs and to attack the problem at its roots. My 
substitute, unlike the now-base bill, authorizes $650 million 
over the next 5 years to support Federal, State, and local law 
enforcement efforts against violent gangs, including the 
funding of witness protection programs. But also unlike the 
base bill, it specifically provides funding for intervention 
and prevention programs for at-risk youth. The bill also 
increases funding for Federal prosecutors and FBI agents to 
increase coordinated enforcement efforts against violent gangs.
    Finally, the Schiff-Bono bill represented in this 
substitute does not include the broad changes that are 
unrelated to the purpose of gang prevention and prosecution, 
and, namely, our bill does not include the 22 mandatory minimum 
provisions within now the base bill.
    While I strongly believe that Congress should closely 
examine the issue of sentencing in light of the Booker 
decision, I do not believe we should respond to the Supreme 
Court decision in a piecemeal fashion such as we find in the 
base bill.
    On a final note, Mr. Chairman, regarding the process, for 
my Democratic colleagues I recognize there are parts of what's 
in my substitute that you may not be comfortable with. I ask 
you to support a vote to make this the base bill because it is 
better than the current base bill, and it still gives you the 
flexibility to vote against my bill on final passage out of the 
Committee.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The time of the gentleman has 
expired.
    Mr. Schiff. Mr. Chairman, may I have an additional 30 
seconds?
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Without objection.
    Mr. Schiff. I just wanted to make one entreaty to my 
colleagues on the other side of the aisle, and that is, this 
bill has bipartisan support in the Senate, this substitute. It 
has bipartisan support here in the House. And I would urge you 
to support the bill as authored by Senators Feinstein, Hatch, 
Kyl, Cornyn, and others, which is represented in my substitute. 
The choice, I think, for the majority in this Committee is 
between a bill that has already earned bipartisan support in 
the Senate and in the House or a bill that is to this point 
limited to partisan support. And I would urge your support for 
the bipartisan work product of both Houses.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentleman from Virginia, Mr. 
Forbes.
    Mr. Forbes. I move to strike the last word.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentleman is recognized for 5 
minutes.
    Mr. Forbes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Chairman, I hope we will reject this substitute, and 
let me tell you why. The choice that we really have here is 
between whether or not we want to go after the lower-tier 
criminals in these criminal crime networks or whether we want 
to go into the crime network itself and rip that network out.
    If you look at this chart that I've got up here, as I 
mentioned to you, we've got approximately 750,000 to 850,000 
criminal gang members in the United States. Just pull one of 
those gangs out. MS-13, this represents the States that MS-13 
is in, which is probably the most vicious, fast-growing gang in 
the country. And you can see how widespread they are in nature.
    Tinisha, if you would put that second chart up, the second 
chart that we have here shows one gang member and his travels 
across the country. Now, we didn't sit down with other Members 
of Congress particularly and talk about how we'd solve this 
problem. What we did is talk to the ATF, talk to the FBI, talk 
to the police around the country, and talk to people who are 
trying to break up these criminal gang networks. And what 
they've told us is this: that they understand the system. And 
in Mr. Schiff's bill, what he does is he doesn't get at the 16- 
and 17-year-olds, but one of the things that we are told is 
that these gangs understand how to work the system. So we'll 
have people in L.A. that are allowing the crimes to be done in 
Virginia and other places, and they know if they use the 16- 
and 17-year-olds, they're not going to get tough penalties. 
They're not going to get tough crimes. And one of the things 
that they're telling us, if we don't have the mandatory 
penalties--and I, too, agree sometimes that I don't like 
mandatory penalties, but the importance of the mandatory 
penalties here is that only when the prosecutors can get into 
these individuals and say you're going to go to jail for X 
number of years, this is a mandatory penalty, do they find that 
they're willing to help break those networks up.
    And when we talk about prevention programs, I'm very 
supportive of many of the prevention programs that Mr. Schiff 
has talked about. I can show you how many dollars we're 
spending in prevention programs. That's not what this bill is 
doing. What this bill is doing is laying in on breaking up 
those networks, and I'll tell you that the strongest prevention 
program we have is breaking down the criminal networks which 
are recruiting these young people and recruiting more and more 
people to violent crimes.
    If you look at MS-13 alone, they didn't start out as a 
vicious, tough gang. They started out in the 1980's because 
they had to form because our good intentions led us to not 
dealing with the gang problem that we had in some areas of the 
country, particularly in L.A. and some other places, and they 
had to form for protecting themselves. And all of our studies 
and all the people in the street suggest that the best 
prevention program we'll have is to reach up and pull these 
networks out and strip the networks out.
    This bill goes to the networks. It doesn't wait until 
they've committed the crimes and continuing to punish the 
crimes and have a revolving door where they're back on the 
street and we're punishing them over and over again.
    So, Mr. Chairman, I hope we will reject this substitute and 
keep with the base bill.
    Ms. Waters. Mr. Chairman?
    Mr. Conyers. Mr. Chairman?
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentleman from Michigan, Mr. 
Conyers?
    Mr. Conyers. Mr. Chairman, we've been put in quite a 
quandary here. We've got a bill 3 weeks old that has come up--
at most, maybe less--with one hearing, and today we have a 
substitute by the gentleman from California, Mr. Schiff, which 
contains not as many mandatory minimums, and--but not too few. 
They have way too many. It's all going in the wrong direction.
    And we're talking about, I presume, a multi-billion-dollar 
that's coasting on the strength of one hearing, plus a 
substitute. So this leaves us to discuss again the fact that 
the studies, as has been pointed out by the gentleman from 
Virginia, Mr. Scott, mandatory minimums have always shown to be 
ineffective in preventing crime.
    Now, I don't know what the problem is here that we just 
keep going the same way over and over again and getting 
essentially the same result. And so I'd like to just put in for 
the record the statements--and I just happen to have been at 
the American Bar Association meeting in San Francisco when 
Justice Kennedy made his dramatic about-face on mandatory 
sentencing. And I'd like unanimous consent to put that in the 
record.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Without objection.
    [The information follows:]
    <GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
    
    Mr. Conyers. And so I'd like the Members of the Committee 
to consider this course of action. How about let's voting all 
of these bills down? Both substitutes are unacceptable. Let's 
get rid of them both and let's have a series of hearings that 
deal more rationally with this subject matter.
    I'd yield to the gentlelady from California, if she needs 
any of this time.
    Ms. Waters. Well, I thank you, Mr. Chairman. I do need 
time, Mc. Conyers, to ask the Members of this Committee to vote 
against this substitute, as well as when we get to the bill, to 
vote against the bill. I think that both of these bills are 
going in the wrong direction.
    It is interesting that Members who sit here in their suit 
and ties talking about gangs, gang members and neighborhood and 
cities and where they operate, really don't know very much 
about what is really happening with these gangs.
    I would invite this Committee, if they dare--Members of 
this Committee go to Iran, they go to Afghanistan, they go all 
over the world. But I would invite you to come to South Los 
Angeles to deal with this gang issue. I would invite you to 
come because many of the Members of Congress have been playing 
politics with issue for far too long. I know it makes some 
Members look very, very good, and they enhance their law and 
order credentials by talking about getting rid of gangs in 
America. However, those of us who have been suffering with this 
problem for a long time have not really gotten any real serious 
attention from the Congress of the United States dealing with 
gangs.
    I appreciate that the President of the United States has 
appointed his wife to deal with the gang issue, and I'm looking 
forward to her coming to South Los Angeles or somebody coming 
to South Los Angeles, where there's a proliferation of gangs, 
because this is a serious problem. It's a serious problem that 
does not appear to have the real understanding of public 
policymakers who should be formulating good public policy, yes, 
to get rid of dangerous people on the streets, whether they're 
gang members or not, I support that. And there are some folks 
who need to be in prison. I support that. But then there are 
children who live in communities that are gang-infested, who 
are not members of gangs, but they----
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The time of the gentleman from 
Michigan has expired.
    The question----
    Ms. Waters. Mr. Chairman, on my own time, I request 5 
minutes to----
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Anybody on the Republican side seek 
recognition? The gentleman from California, Mr. Gallegly.
    Ms. Waters. Thank you.
    Mr. Gallegly. I thank the Chairman for yielding, and I 
would just like to respond quickly to my good friend from South 
Central Los Angeles, and I would like to remind her that this 
Member was born and raised in that area. I lived through the 
Watts riots in 1965 when the gentlelady was living in St. 
Louis, and I have very close ties to that area, spend a great 
deal of time there, and I can tell you that I can't understand 
for the life of me, when I know that you care about your 
constituents, the only way those young people that you're 
talking about will ever be protected from the scourge of the 
gangs that are going on down there is for us to take tough 
action like Mr. Forbes is advocating to protect the innocent 
ones that are living and surrounded by the gangs.
    I would yield back.
    Ms. Waters. Mr. Chairman?
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Does the gentleman yield back? Does 
the gentleman from California yield back?
    Mr. Gallegly. Yes, I do yield back.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentlewoman from California, 
Ms. Waters.
    Ms. Waters. Thank you very much. Before I continue with my 
perspective on this, I would like to say to the gentleman who 
just addressed me, again, you don't know what you're talking 
about. I was in South Los Angeles in 1965. I was not in St. 
Louis. And it's not about whether or not you were born or 
raised there. It's about what you know about what is or is not 
taking place with those gangs in South Los Angeles.
    So, again, let me just say that there are a lot of young 
people who live in areas, who live in communities, who are not 
gang members but who must identify in some ways because of 
where they live. And these young people are about to be caught 
up in public policy as we design it here that's going to send 
them to prison, that's going to get them involved with the 
criminal justice system, even though the don't deserve it. And 
this kind of legislation does not recognize the difference 
between hard-core gang members and innocent young people who 
live in these neighborhoods.
    Secondly, let me say this: I do not support mandatory 
minimum sentencing under any conditions or the enhancement of 
mandatory minimum sentences as is done in the substitute 
amendment. Nor do I support the idea that in order to even talk 
about prevention that somehow you have got to come up with 
these draconian laws, again, that's going to harm what I 
consider some young people who need but some attention, some 
investment by this country in their possibility.
    We have a lot of young people who would like to stay in 
school, who would like to have a job, who would like to have 
some job training. Nowhere do I see a real commitment to 
dealing with young people, some of whom by no fault of their 
own are victims of a system and victims of a situation where 
maybe their parents were involved with drugs, who are in 
prison, who are dead, and grandmothers who are trying to raise 
these children without any real assistance. We need job 
training programs with stipends to support these young people 
while they're in job training. We need to have after-school 
programs where these young people can go who need to be able to 
prepare their clothing to go to school the next morning, who 
will have some food, some tutorial assistance. We need a real 
effort, a sincere effort by Democrats and Republicans alike, if 
we are going to deal with the gang problems of America.
    And you're absolutely right, while I'm sitting here begging 
you, literally begging you to come to South Los Angeles--and I 
know you're not going to do it because I question the sincerity 
of those who say they want to deal with this issue. Again, I'm 
going to say it one more time. You can get on planes and you 
can go all over the world, but you can't come to South Los 
Angeles or other areas that are gang-infested to give some 
sincere attention to this issue and stop playing politics with 
it.
    I'm against this bill, and I resent even my colleague on 
this side of the aisle talking about this great bipartisan 
bill. There's no great bipartisan over here. I don't support 
this bill because, again, you're simply trying to talk about 
what you're going to do with law enforcement. Law enforcement 
has a long way to go to deal with this mess. If they had ever 
wanted to really break up gangs, they would have, number one, 
recruited and trained young people to get involved with law 
enforcement so that there could be some undercover work to 
identify who the real problems are in the communities. But they 
haven't done that. All that you have, every year or so, is 
someone who comes and runs a campaign on the backs of so-called 
gang members, scaring the heck out of folks that somehow 
they're going to save them.
    The police, the criminal justice system who have not done 
the work that is necessary to get in there and find out who the 
real perpetrators are, the lack of resources for young people 
who want a way out, who are desperate for some assistance, 
really has not been done. And as Mr. Scott identified, it is 
shameful the amount of dollars that we claim that we have spent 
toward a bill that started out for $500 million and ended up 
with $55 million.
    We should reject this substitute and the base bill because 
it does not deal with the problem, stop and have some hearings, 
spend some time going across this country, come to South Los 
Angeles, go to Virginia----
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentlewoman's time----
    Ms. Waters.--wherever we need to go----
    Chairman Sensenbrenner.--has expired. The Chair recognizes 
himself.
    I think it's about time to break for lunch. Let me say two 
things.
    First of all, there has been an agreement that has been 
reached on the counterfeiting bill, which means, I think, that 
that bill can go through with relatively little debate. And 
when we come back after lunch, it is the Chair's intention to 
ask unanimous consent to bring that bill up out of order so 
that we can dispose of that and get it moving along.
    Secondly, it does--I have been informed by the floor that 
there will be some votes at approximately 1:30. I would ask all 
of the Members to return to this markup as soon as they can 
after the conclusion of the votes at 1:30. And I'd like to 
start the markup within about 10 minutes after the conclusion 
of the last vote at 1:30 p.m.
    The Committee stands recessed until after the last vote in 
the series at 1:30.
    [Whereupon, at 11:57, the Committee was recessed, to 
reconvene this same day.]
    AFTERNOON SESSION [2:34 p.m.]
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The Committee will be in order. A 
working quorum is present.
    Pending when the Committee recessed was a motion to report 
the bill H.R. 1279 favorably. There was an amendment in the 
nature of a substitute offered by the gentleman from Virginia, 
Mr. Forbes, and the pending question was another amendment in 
the nature of a substitute to the amendment in the nature of a 
substitute by the gentleman from California, Mr. Schiff.
    Without objection, the Committee will consider the bill 
H.R. 32, and we will get back to the other bill after 
completion of H.R. 32. Hearing none, so ordered.
    [Intervening business.]
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Now, we will go back to H.R. 1279. 
When the Committee recessed for lunch, pending was a motion to 
report the bill H.R. 1279, the ``Gang Deterrence and Community 
Protection Act,'' favorably to the full House. Pending was an 
amendment in the nature of a substitute by the gentleman from 
Virginia, Mr. Forbes, and pending to that was another amendment 
in the nature of a substitute by the gentleman from California, 
Mr. Schiff. And the question is on agreeing to the Schiff 
amendment in the nature of a substitute to the Forbes amendment 
in the nature of a substitute.
    The gentleman from Virginia, Mr. Scott?
    Mr. Scott. Mr. Chairman, move to strike the last word.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentleman is recognized for 5 
minutes.
    Mr. Scott. Mr. Chairman, I have a couple of questions to 
ask to the sponsor of this amendment in the nature of a 
substitute.
    First of all, I would ask if you--that this amendment has a 
reverse waiver, but does it not try more juveniles as adults?
    Mr. Schiff. If the gentleman will yield, the substitute to 
the substitute does allow for the prosecutor to file against 
16- and 17-year-olds who have committed serious violent 
offenses where it's necessary to have a multi-defendant 
criminal prosecution. However, unlike the base bill, it allows 
for a reverse waiver where after the prosecutor files the 
initial petition to have the juvenile treated in the Federal 
court system, the judge has the ability, upon proof by a 
preponderance of the evidence by the juvenile's counsel, to 
reverse the waiver. So there is a safety valve in that the 
unilateral action of the prosecutor alone is not sufficient to 
get the juvenile into Federal court.
    When Mr. Fitzgerald, the U.S. Attorney, testified in the 
Subcommittee on this issue, he mentioned this is something that 
will be very seldom used. There will be seldom a reason to 
bring juveniles in the Federal court system. I think that's a 
very wise policy. We don't want to open a floodgate. But I 
think because prosecutors are very likely to only use this in 
extraordinary cases, the judges will uphold that decision----
    Mr. Scott. Reclaiming my time----
    Mr. Schiff. Yes.
    Mr. Scott. Reclaiming my time, I guess we can question 
whether to try more juveniles as adults than we presently do is 
good policy. I think we can debate that. I think the evidence 
is clear.
    Another question. Does this amendment in the nature of a 
substitute, the amendment, your amendment, include additional 
death penalties than we have now?
    Mr. Schiff. It includes additional death penalties to those 
that are in existing law. I think it has an equivalent number, 
only a slight variation from my colleague's base bill.
    Mr. Scott. And I would ask on mandatory minimums, in your 
opening statement you said you eliminated some of the mandatory 
minimums. Do you not increase some mandatory minimums?
    Mr. Schiff. No. What I said was that we, I think, modify 
one of the mandatory minimums. We don't add new mandatory 
minimums, and that distinguished it from the base bill, which 
has, I think, 22 new mandatory minimums.
    Mr. Scott. Does ``modify'' mean increase?
    Mr. Schiff. I think one of the mandatory minimums is 
increased in the length of the mandatory minimum, but I don't 
believe we have added a new mandatory minimum.
    Mr. Scott. Okay. Thank you. I think one of the mandatory 
minimums in your amendment increases the mandatory minimum for 
gun crimes, I believe.
    Mr. Chairman, one thing this amendment has is some 
prevention authorization, but, unfortunately, insofar as we 
haven't fully funded the present authorization, any new 
authorization, I obviously would reflect an empty promise. The 
underlying bill and the amendment suggest that the criminal 
code is insufficient to deal with violent crime. I've talked to 
many law enforcement officers, and none have indicated that 
they don't know what to do with crooks they catch who have 
committed kidnapping, murder for hire, or other violent crimes. 
Present laws are sufficient. As a matter of fact, the criminal 
justice system is working all too well. The United States today 
has more people in jail per 100,000 population than any country 
on Earth. And in our inner cities, the rate is off the chart.
    I would hope that we would defeat the underlying bill, 
defeat this amendment, and get back to what we know works, and 
that is an intensive effort for prevention and early 
intervention for those who are likely to get involved in gangs 
and rely on our present criminal justice system to continue 
arresting, prosecuting, and jailing those who are committing 
violent crimes.
    I yield back.
    Mr. Inglis. Mr. Chairman?
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentleman from South Carolina, 
Mr. Inglis.
    Mr. Inglis. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Gentleman is recognized for 5 
minutes.
    Mr. Inglis. Reluctantly, I'm opposed to the substitute of 
the substitute, the substitute and the underlying bill. I think 
there are several problems.
    One: We continue this pattern of federalizing State crimes. 
We need to think about that. Two: Mandatory minimums, I'm more 
and more uncomfortable with them. I voted for mandatory 
minimums a number of times on my tenure here on Judiciary 
Committee in the '93 through '98 time period, but I think we 
need to rethink those, and they're leading us to the wrong 
places I believe. Third: I'm concerned about setting up 
programs that frankly we all know will establish constituencies 
that will tell us, henceforth that you cannot eliminate them.
    So the substitute to the substitute would establish a $650 
million program which is a lot of money. The substitute would 
establish a $50 million program. The way things are in 
Washington, programs grow like kudzu, and the result will be 
that that will turn into an indispensable program in the years 
to come, and Members of Congress will be lobbied by various 
people saying: You can't, whatever you do, Congresswoman or 
Congressman, eliminate this program. And the result will be it 
will never die. And before we establish new programs like that 
I think we need to think long and hard about whether is this 
the most effective way to deal with this problem?
    I'm happy to yield back.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The question is on the----
    Mr. Wexler. Mr. Chairman?
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentleman from Florida, Mr. 
Wexler.
    Mr. Wexler. Move to strike the last word.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentleman is recognized for 5 
minutes.
    Mr. Wexler. Yield to Mr. Schiff.
    Mr. Schiff. I thank my colleague for yielding.
    And I just want to take this opportunity to address some of 
the comments and criticisms that have been raised vis-a-vis the 
substitute to the substitute, which I'll refer to as the 
Schiff-Bono bill. First the objection is made by my colleague, 
author of the substitute proposal, that the Schiff-Bono 
proposal doesn't deal with the travel of the MS-13 gang, 
doesn't deal with 16- and 17-year-olds, doesn't provide a 
sufficient deterrent to people to commit gang activity. I don't 
think any of those objections are well founded.
    Of course it does deal with the issue of gangs being 
national by establishing a criminal enterprise like RICO to go 
after gangs. That was the whole point of the bill. It does 
allow prosecutors to bring in 16- and 17-year-olds. It does 
have the overwhelming support of law enforcement, and I have a 
list of about 30 law enforcement groups that all supported this 
bill in the Senate last year.
    So both bills really seek to accomplish the same goal vis-
a-vis strengthening the prosecution of gang crime, vis-a-vis 
some of the criticisms on my side of the aisle, in particular, 
that some of us don't know the gang problem South Central. The 
reality is that the gang problem is everywhere now. The gang 
problem is in my district in Glendale, and in Pasadena, in 
Monterey Park, in Alhambra. It cuts across all ethnicities and 
all income levels. This is not a problem that is confined to 
any one district or any one ethnicity. It's unfortunately very 
widespread throughout the country.
    Second, regarding the issue of trying juveniles in the 
Federal system or trying them as adults, this is a very 
legitimate and difficult issue. We often focus on the effect on 
the juvenile prosecuting them in adult court or confining them 
in adult facility, and there are some legitimate concerns 
there, but we often don't focus on the opposite problem, and 
that is confining the very serious, violent juvenile offenders 
with the much less serious juvenile offenders who are then 
exposed to predatory juveniles, and that is a problem as well. 
In addition, when you treat a juvenile as a juvenile and the 
juvenile reaches a certain age, the court no longer has 
jurisdiction over them, cannot even supervise them through 
parole or probation because they have left the jurisdiction of 
the court. And to allow juveniles who commit very serious, 
violent offense to go without supervision once they're released 
is problematic. So not an easy issue either way.
    So what then are the cardinal differences between the 
bipartisan bill that I'm offering that's been introduced in the 
House, the bipartisan bill in the Senate, the Feinstein-Hatch 
bill, and what has become the base bill? There are basically 
four or five differences and some similarities. First of all, 
the main similarity is we both have basically a RICO-like 
provision in our bills to use this new apparatus to go after 
criminal street gangs.
    Second, we both allow very selectively the inclusion of 
juveniles, the difference being that in my bill we give the 
court some say into particular cases to bring juveniles in, in 
the base bill there is no say of the court whatsoever, it's 
purely prosecutorial discretion.
    Third, both bills increase sentencing. The primary 
difference is that my colleague's base bill provides 22 
mandatory minimums, our base bill increase sentences without 
increasing the number of mandatory minimums. I think the issue 
of mandatory minimums raised by the Booker decision must be 
addressed systematically and not piecemeal in this bill.
    Third--and this is one of the most significant differences 
between the base bill and my substitute--and that is the 
preventive funding that was approved on a bipartisan basis in 
the Senate. Why is this so important? Because the punishment, 
the deterrence is only one part of the equation. We need to 
provide an equal effort of prevention. Only the two combined 
will be successful. When my colleague says this bill is not 
about prevention programs, he's right, and that's the flaw with 
the base building--with the base bill. It has to be about both 
suppression of crime and prevention of crime.
    And finally, what is the difference between the two bills? 
One has bipartisan support in the Senate and can get through 
the Senate, the other has--and also has bipartisan support and 
was introduced in a bipartisan way before this base bill was 
even introduced in the House. The other has no bipartisan 
support and is a partisan vehicle on what should be a 
bipartisan solution.
    Those are in sum the differences between the bills, and 
once again I'd urge my colleagues' support for the substitute, 
and I would be happy to yield back the balance of my time.
    Mr. Chabot. Mr. Chairman?
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentleman from Ohio, Mr. 
Chabot.
    Mr. Chabot. Move to strike the last word.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentleman's recognized for 5 
minutes.
    Mr. Chabot. Thank you. And I'll yield briefly to the 
gentleman from Virginia.
    Mr. Forbes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, earlier 
today we had the word ``insincerity'' brought out when we were 
talking about these bills, and I just disagree with that. I 
think all the parties are sincere in what they're trying to do. 
The reality is that we look at the ferociousness and the 
viciousness of these gangs and their growing nature across the 
country, and really we have three approaches to it. There are 
some who feel that we don't need any other laws, that law 
enforcement in some manner or the other just isn't doing what 
they need to be doing, whether they need more resources or they 
just won't get out there and do it, we don't need any 
additional laws to tackle the gang problem.
    There are some people who think my bill is too tough and 
they want a softer bill, thinking that they can go after these 
gangs. The reality is you just can't. You will punish the 
crimes after they have taken place, but you will do nothing to 
bring down the crime networks. The prosecutors who come into us 
met with the ATF, the FBI, the prosecutors, Fraternal Order of 
Police. What we have got to do is we've got to be able to bring 
down the networks, and the only way we do that is with tough 
mandatory penalties, where we go in and we look at someone who 
has committed these crimes and say, ``If you don't cooperate 
and help bring down the network, you're going to go to jail for 
a long time.''
    And I also want to make something clear too. We talk about 
all the people that are innocently getting caught up in these 
gangs. We need to be thinking about protection for those people 
who don't get caught up in the gangs but are caught up in the 
gang violence. Michelle Garst came in here supporting this 
bill, who had moved from Philadelphia because the gangs were 
tormenting them in the area they live there. She moved to 
Maryland with her 9 children, put them in charter schools, 
thinking she was escaping the gangs. Her husband was murdered 
by a gang member. Why? Just for initiation into a gang. And if 
you ask her do we need a softer bill, Michelle Garst will tell 
you no, we need a tough bill to bring down these criminal 
networks, and this will do it.
    The final thing I'll tell you, the best prevention program 
we can have is to get rid of these gangs themselves because 
that's what's driving kids in by fear and intimidation. If you 
go into a doctor's office and you tell him you've got cancer, 
you don't want him to spend 30 minutes telling you how you 
could have prevented getting that cancer, you don't want him to 
spend 30 minutes telling you how your family can not get that 
cancer. What you want him to do then is laser in and get that 
cancer out of your body, and then you can deal with prevention 
programs. This bill does that. It lasers in and pulls out those 
crime networks. If you don't want to get the crime networks, if 
you just want to get the victims after they have already become 
victims, deal with a softer bill. I hope we'll reject the 
amendment and support the base bill, and I yield back the 
balance of my time.
    Mr. Chabot. Thank you. Reclaiming time, I yield back.
    Mr. Nadler. Mr. Chairman?
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentleman from New York, Mr. 
Nadler.
    Mr. Nadler. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, I 
haven't expressed myself on this bill yet, and I'm going to be 
very brief. I don't like the bill. I think the Schiff amendment 
is better than the bill, but I don't like it either, and I 
yield to the gentleman from Virginia.
    Mr. Scott. Thank you, and I thank the gentleman for 
yielding. And I want to make it clear that I haven't questioned 
the sincerity of anybody. Maybe somebody else did. I haven't 
questioned the sincerity or the motives. I have questioned the 
provisions of the bill. The question's been raised whether 
somebody's being tough or somebody's being soft. I have said 
that I support initiatives that reduce crime. We know by every 
study that trying more juveniles as adults increases crime, so 
when you describe all of these bad crimes, you can assume that 
there will be more of them because when you try more juveniles 
as adults not only do you increase crime, you increase violent 
crime in particular.
    If somebody's going to be tough on crime, you ought to 
support the initiatives that reduce the incidence of crime and 
the incidence of violent crime, and you can call it soft or 
tough, but we're talking about increasing crime or decreasing 
crime, and the mandatory minimums in the bill have been 
described by the Judicial Conference as violating common sense. 
And how is that being tough, violating common sense and 
increasing crime? So we have to be careful how we use these 
adjectives like you're being soft or you're being tough. We're 
trying to--some of us are trying to reduce crime, and the 
provisions of the bill, by every study that's been done, will 
increase the crime rate, and that's why we're opposing it, not 
because we're trying to be either soft or tough.
    I yield back.
    Mr. Nadler. And I agree with Mr. Scott and I yield back.
    Mr. Delahunt. Mr. Chairman?
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentleman from Massachusetts, 
Mr. Delahunt.
    Mr. Delahunt. Yeah. I'm just going to--I think we make a 
mistake if we start to characterize what we're all trying to 
accomplish as tough or as soft. That doesn't I think contribute 
to the debate. I believe that every Member of the Committee 
wants to do something about reducing gang violence, youth 
violence, and the incidence of violent crime in this country. 
The question ought to be framed in terms of what works, what's 
effective, what's going to do that? I believe in prevention. I 
believe in treatment, I believe in laws that exist, that when 
necessary to incarcerate an individual, for however long it 
takes.
    And what the gentleman is referring to when he talks about 
ripping these networks apart, I agree. I'm sure Mr. Schiff 
agrees. I think everybody on the Committee agrees. But what I 
would suggest is that the laws that are utilized by prosecutors 
to rip apart those networks already exist. There is the CCE, 
there is the RICO statute. There are conspiracy statutes. What 
I would suggest is that if the resources that are unavailable 
to law enforcement, that, yes, we provide law enforcement with 
the resources to do their job, which is to investigate and 
prosecute crime, and to rip those networks apart.
    I just don't understand, Mr. Forbes, why your bill, as 
opposed to the Schiff bill, does a better job of ripping apart 
networks.
    Mr. Forbes. Will the gentleman yield so I can tell you?
    Mr. Delahunt. Of course.
    Mr. Forbes. The basic thing that we're hearing from 
prosecutors and those people who are trying to rip these 
networks apart out in the field is this. First of all, the 
gangs today that we're talking about are not local gangs, 
they're national gangs, and they have activities across the 
country. And many times you need a broader network if you're 
going to be able to bring them in. It's not activity in just 
one State. They're all telling us----
    Mr. Delahunt. Let me just reclaim my time, because let me 
respond to that.
    Mr. Forbes. Okay.
    Mr. Delahunt. We have the ability to do that now. We work--
we have joint task forces between local, State and Federal 
investigative agencies all over this country. What does your 
bill do to enhance that?
    Mr. Forbes. If you'll let me respond I'll be glad to tell 
you.
    Mr. Delahunt. Sure.
    Mr. Forbes. What they're telling us is that when they bring 
these people in, the gang members know how to work the system 
now, the leaders, and so they're not actually committing the 
crimes many times. What they're doing is sending lower tier 
people in the crime networks out to commit the crime. When they 
capture them in doing it and they bring them in, the 
prosecutors say that in many instances they're looking at them 
and they realize that it's a flip of the dice when they go in 
for trial as to whether or not they're going to get a year or 2 
years or even 3 years, and they're telling us that they are not 
going to help and cooperate because, as you know, the gang 
members are sitting there telling them, and threatening and 
intimidating them, as just being witnesses.
    The prosecutors tell us, however, when they have the tough 
and the hard mandatory sentences, they can walk in and look at 
those individuals, and they will give up the networks. And then 
they can put them in witness protection.
    Mr. Delahunt. Reclaiming my time, reclaiming my time, I've 
heard that argument over and over and over again. I was a 
prosecutor for 22 years, a good prosecutor. If he or she wishes 
to develop and informant or wishes to develop a cooperating 
witness can do it. I don't know what prosecutors you're talking 
to, okay, but I know my own experience and experience of people 
that are prominent in law enforcement will tell you that there 
are many ways to achieve the development of a cooperating 
witness, and please do not overstate the sophistication of 
these national gangs. I can assure you most juvenile offenders, 
most gang members do not carry with them a copy of the United 
States Criminal Code. They simply don't do that.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The time of the gentleman has 
expired.
    Ms. Sanchez. Mr. Chairman?
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentlewoman from California, 
Ms. Sanchez.
    Ms. Sanchez. I move to strike the last word, and I would 
yield to the gentleman from California, Mr. Schiff.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentlewoman's recognized for 5 
minutes.
    Mr. Schiff. I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.
    I just want to respond again to a couple of comments made 
by my colleague from Massachusetts and my colleague from 
Virginia. How does the base bill differ from the substitute in 
terms of the ability to go after crime networks? It doesn't 
really. Both bills are designed exactly to go after these 
national and indeed now international crime networks. They both 
use the same prosecutorial tool in establishing a new RICO-like 
statute for criminal street gangs. That's the heart of the 
bill.
    What are the differences? I've gone through some of them, 
but it seems like my colleague is very fixated on one in 
particular, and that is mandatory minimums, which bill has got 
more mandatory minimums, as if that's the linchpin for any 
success in dealing with gangs, and that's simply not the case.
    This bill is not new. It wasn't, it wasn't born a month ago 
when my colleague introduced it, or 2 months ago when I 
introduced the Schiff-Bono bill. This bill was introduced in 
the Senate over a year ago, and it had none of the mandatory 
minimums my colleague is arguing for. It had the support of 
over 30 law enforcement organizations. My colleague says his 
base bill is supported by the Fraternal Order of Police. They 
endorsed my bill before they even endorsed my colleague's bill. 
Plainly, both approaches have law enforcement support.
    Now, I realize that Booker has changed the equation to some 
degree, but nonetheless, with the enhanced sentencing 
capability in the substitute prosecutors have a great deal of 
bargaining authority over gang members and defendants and 
potential defendants, so they both accomplish the same 
objective.
    And I would just urge my colleague to be a little 
circumspect in his attacks on the substitute. My guess is the 
bill that comes back from the Senate is going to look a lot 
more like this substitute than the base bill, and you'll 
probably support it. So let's not demean too much the work 
product because it probably will look a lot like what I'm 
advocating.
    In any event, one of the last items I'd like to emphasize 
is something in Pat Fitzgerald's testimony before the 
Subcommittee on this bill. He talked about the success that his 
office had had in keeping kids out of trouble, and the 
tremendous decline in violence, gang violence that they had 
been able to achieve. And what he attributed that to was the 
proactive work of his office, and the base bill cuts the 
funding for that proactive work. It cuts the funding for the 
Project Safe Neighborhoods, which the National District 
Attorneys Association testified we should retain. And so some 
of the----
    Mr. Forbes. Would the gentleman yield?
    Mr. Schiff. Yes.
    Mr. Forbes. Can the gentleman show me in the bill where it 
cuts funding to any other program?
    Mr. Schiff. I'd be delighted. If you're asking me how does 
it cut existing funding, what I'm referring to is what it cuts 
out of the Senate bipartisan bill.
    Mr. Forbes. No, but this bill doesn't do anything to cut 
any existing programs, as you just stated.
    Mr. Schiff. Well, I'll have to get back to the gentleman on 
that to find out whether it goes beyond cutting the amounts out 
of the Senate bill----
    Mr. Forbes. Can the gentleman yield?
    Mr. Schiff. I don't have much time left. I'm sure one of 
your colleagues would be happy to yield to you.
    But the fact of the matter is that of the 650 million that 
is in the bill to be divided in the substitute equally between 
prevention programs by community based organizations and law 
enforcement, your base bill I think only has 50 million, and it 
is devoted to the law enforcement side. And this is, you know, 
one of the principal differences. I think a balanced bill has 
to have increased deterrence and increased prevention. I think 
both are necessary. Either alone is inadequate, and that I 
think is the heart and soul of the difference between the two 
bills. That's what I think makes the substitute a better bill, 
and I will yield back the balance of my time.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The question is on the Schiff 
amendment in the nature of a substitute to the Forbes amendment 
in the nature of a substitute. Those in favor will say aye.
    Opposed, no.
    The noes appear to have it.
    Mr. Schiff. Mr. Chairman, I'd request a recorded vote.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. A recorded vote is requested. Those 
in favor of the Schiff substitute to the Forbes substitute will 
as your names are called answer aye, those opposed, no, and the 
clerk will call the roll.
    The Clerk. Mr. Hyde?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Coble?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Smith?
    Mr. Smith of Texas. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Smith, no. Mr. Gallegly?
    Mr. Gallegly. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Gallegly, no. Mr. Goodlatte?
    Mr. Goodlatte. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Goodlatte, no. Mr. Chabot?
    Mr. Chabot. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Chabot, no. Mr. Lungren?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Jenkins?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Cannon?
    Mr. Cannon. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Cannon, no. Mr. Bachus?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Inglis?
    Mr. Inglis. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Inglis, no. Mr. Hostettler?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Green?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Keller?
    Mr. Keller. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Keller, no. Mr. Issa?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Flake?
    Mr. Flake. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Flake, no. Mr. Pence?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Pence, no. Mr. Forbes?
    Mr. Forbes. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Forbes, no. Mr. King?
    Mr. King. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. King, no. Mr. Feeney?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Franks?
    Mr. Franks. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Franks, no. Mr. Gohmert?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Conyers?
    Mr. Conyers. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Conyers, no. Mr. Berman?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Boucher?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Nadler?
    Mr. Nadler. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Nadler, no. Mr. Scott?
    Mr. Scott. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Scott, no. Mr. Watt?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Ms. Lofgren?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Ms. Jackson Lee?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Ms. Waters?
    Ms. Waters. No.
    The Clerk. Ms. Waters, no. Mr. Meehan?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Delahunt?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Wexler?
    Mr. Wexler. Yes.
    The Clerk. Mr. Wexler, aye. Mr. Weiner?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Schiff?
    Mr. Schiff. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Schiff, aye. Ms. Sanchez?
    Ms. Sanchez. No.
    The Clerk. Ms. Sanchez, no. Mr. Smith?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Van Hollen?
    Mr. Van Hollen. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Van Hollen, aye. Mr. Chairman?
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Chairman, no.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Members in the chamber who wish to 
cast or changes their votes? Gentleman from North Carolina, Mr. 
Coble?
    Mr. Coble. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Coble, no.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentleman from California, Mr. 
Issa?
    Mr. Issa. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Issa, no.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Gentleman from Alabaman, Mr. 
Bachus?
    Mr. Bachus. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Bachus, no.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Further Members who wish to cast or 
change their vote? Gentleman from Florida, Mr. Feeney?
    Mr. Feeney. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Feeney, no.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Gentleman from Wisconsin, Mr. 
Green?
    Mr. Green. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Green, no.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The clerk will report.
    The Clerk. Mr. Chairman, there are 3 ayes and 22 noes.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. And the amendment in the nature of 
a substitute is not agreed to.
    Mr. Scott. Before you announce the vote----
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The vote has been announced.
    Mr. Scott. [Inaudible.]
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. I said the amendment was not agreed 
to.
    [Intervening business.]
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. We will now resume consideration of 
H.R. 1279. The current pending amendment is the Forbes 
amendment in the nature of a substitute. Are there any second 
degree amendments to the Forbes amendment in the nature of a--
--
    Mr. Conyers. I think I have one.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentleman from Michigan, Mr. 
Conyers.
    Mr. Conyers. I've got the Conyers-Van Hollen amendment.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The clerk will report amendment.
    The Clerk. Amendment to the amendment in the nature of a 
substitute to H.R. 1279 offered by Mr. Conyers and Mr. Van 
Hollen. At the end of Title 1 add the following. Section 116--
--
    Mr. Conyers. I ask unanimous consent the amendment be 
considered as read.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Without objection the amendment is 
considered as read and the gentleman from Michigan is 
recognized for 5 minutes.
    [The amendment follows:]
      
      

  
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>

      
      

  
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>

    Mr. Conyers. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'm going to divide 
my time with the gentleman from Maryland. It's a very 
straightforward amendment, closing a loophole that exists in 
our Federal gun laws by making it illegal--here's what the 
amendment does, make it illegal to transfer a firearm to anyone 
that the Federal Government has designated as a suspected or 
known gang member or terrorist. This may sound amazing to you, 
but 56 firearm purchase attempts were made by people known to 
be terrorists or suspected gang members, and 47 of them were 
forced--the sales were forced to proceed because under the 
present law only a prior felony conviction or a court 
determined finding of mental defect is the only way that anyone 
cannot be sold a weapon.
    And so what we're doing is taking care of that problem, 
rather than dealing with after-the-fact penalties which are of 
little use after the victims have occurred.
    So this is very important, and I close with this one 
observation, that we have a very regulated list of gang 
members, so this isn't just random----
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Will the gentleman yield?
    Mr. Conyers. Of course.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. I'm a little bit concerned about 
the due process questions involved here. People who have been 
convicted of a felony or adjudicated as mentally defective in a 
court are on the list of those who cannot purchase or possess 
firearms, and there there's been a court determination that 
ends up giving them this type of disability. In your amendment, 
there is simply an administrative placing of a name on a list, 
and doesn't that concern you that someone cannot get firearms 
simply because a bureaucrat has decided that question?
    Mr. Conyers. Well, I--this is a great day in America 
because your due process concerns appear to exceed mine, so 
this will go down---- [Laughter.]
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. If the gentleman will yield, I hope 
everybody in the room notes that fact, remembers it.
    Mr. Conyers. Yeah. But I don't know if it's accurate. 
Here's the problem, Mr. Chairman, and I'll get additional time 
for my colleague from Maryland. We have, we have already lists, 
and of course we're talking about the Administration that has 
gone over the top on violations of due process. I mean we can 
now arrest people, even American citizens, and make them enemy 
combatants on--not on the say of a court or due process or the 
Department of Justice, but the President of the United States, 
and I am convinced that our method of making sure that this is 
not exceeded allows me to do this. Besides, there is a 
provision that this can be appealed so that this isn't, you 
know, for all time.
    So for those reasons I am very enthusiastic about getting 
not just the mental defective people, but there is a war on, 
you know, and we've got to deal with the terrorists and the 
known suspected gang members. And I yield to my colleague 
that's worked with me, the gentleman from Maryland, MR. Van 
Hollen.
    Mr. Van Hollen. Thank you. I thank Mr. Conyers for his 
leadership on this issue. We've been talking in the Committee 
on a bipartisan basis here about the importance of cracking 
down on gang activities and the danger of gangs, and the danger 
they pose to people in our communities. This is a pretty common 
sense bill. It says if you have been identified by the Federal 
Government as somebody who is a dangerous gang member, then if 
you walk into your local gun store, that you shouldn't be able 
to immediately purchase a gun.
    Now, to get to the issues raised by the Chairman, there's 
nothing to prevent somebody from going to the holders of this 
list, the list that shows, lists people as terrorists or gang 
members and say, ``My name shouldn't be on this list.'' So does 
it mean that someone can't immediately get that gun? It would 
do so. And I would suggest the balance here should be in terms 
of----
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The time of the gentleman from 
Michigan has expired.
    Mr. Conyers. Mr. Chairman?
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Without objection, the gentleman 
from Michigan will be given two more minutes.
    Mr. Conyers. I yield to the gentleman from Maryland.
    Mr. Van Hollen. I thank the gentleman from Michigan. Thank 
you, Mr. Chairman.
    So the balance here is in terms of sending somebody into a 
gun store who we know is identified as a dangerous gang member 
on a Federal list, and saying to them that you can't get that 
gun immediately. Now, if they want to get their name removed 
from the list, they should do so, and we should make sure they 
understand how to do it. This came up in discussions with the 
Attorney General the other day.
    But let me just say, as you know, with respect to the no-
fly list, when someone's name is on the no-fly list it doesn't 
mean they've been convicted or a crime. It means that they've 
been identified as someone who poses a potential danger to 
public safety, and it's important to at least have the option 
of saying to that person, ``We think that you should be denied 
access to the airplane.'' You can then go about getting your 
name off the list, and again you should.
    But I see no reason to distinguish between someone who's 
denied access to an airplane because they're considered a 
public threat and letting that person get in their car, go to a 
local gun store and buy a bunch of semiautomatic assault 
weapons. It makes absolutely no sense. It's totally 
inconsistent. This brings some consistency to the policy.
    Thank you.
    Mr. Forbes. Mr. Chairman?
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentleman from Virginia, Mr. 
Forbes.
    Mr. Forbes. Mr. Chairman, move to strike the last word.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentleman's recognized for 5 
minutes.
    Mr. Forbes. Mr. Chairman, I hope we'll reject this 
amendment. The--several points. First of all, your due process 
point is very, very well on in that the people that are placed 
on this list have absolutely no litigation that takes place 
prior to that time, no opportunity to present their case before 
they're put on the list, and certainly it will be a due process 
violation.
    Secondly, if we think that most of these violent gang 
criminals are going in and buying their guns at gun stores, let 
me just suggest to you that's not what a lot of the statistics 
say. They're trading them for narcotics which they're getting, 
and the way they get the narcotics is by stealing cars and 
shipping cars out of the country in many instances.
    But the second thing, Mr. Chairman, is 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(1), 
as you know, makes it a crime for a convicted felon to have a 
gun. If you pass the underlying bill we won't need this 
provision because we're going to put these violent criminal 
gang members away for mandatory sentences that are going to put 
them out of commission for a long period of time. They won't be 
going in and buying guns, and we don't need this provision.
    I yield back.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentlewoman from California, 
Ms. Waters?
    Ms. Waters. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman and members. 
I understand and recognize the need for civility and how 
Members do not like anyone to question another Member's motives 
or sincerity. And we've had a limited discussion about that 
today.
    However, for those of us who are desperate to do something 
about gang violence and gang warfare in these communities that 
are just overwhelmed now with the gang problem, we will not 
understand, we cannot understand how any Member of Congress who 
claims to be concerned about getting rid of violence and 
stopping other gangs from having access to weapons and guns 
could be opposed to this amendment.
    I would like to believe, I would sincerely like to believe 
that my friends on the opposite side of the aisle are concerned 
about due process rights. Everything that I have learned since 
I've been a Member of Congress leads me to conclude that many 
Members do not give a darn about due process rights, and I 
think you could not be any clearer than the Ranking Member, Mr. 
Conyers, in describing how due process rights have been 
violated in law as he described the enemy combatant situation 
that we have now that's being exercised by this President and 
this Administration.
    Ladies and gentlemen, the maker of--the author of the 
legislation described how a father had been killed. Let me tell 
you, many innocent people are being killed. Children are being 
killed in drive-by shootings. Family members are being killed 
who are guilty of nothing simply because they are related to 
another gang member. Where there is a gang warfare going on, 
the guns are flowing in these communities. I don't know where 
they get them all from, and I don't care where they get them 
from. I want them stopped. I want our communities rid of guns. 
We have everything from AK-47s to handguns. They buy them from 
people who sell them in the back of cars. They trade them. They 
get them from so-called legitimate gun dealers.
    If you are serious about doing something about violence, 
one of the things you must do is help get rid of the guns--the 
guns that are causing all of this terror in our communities.
    So I am considered a liberal. I'm considered that bad name 
that's been demonized--a liberal, whose fight too often is 
about due process rights. You can't due process rights more 
than I can. That's what I do. I take care of people's due 
process rights. So you're not better than I, you're not better 
than Mr. Conyers, you don't care more than we do. We do this on 
a daily basis. So, please, don't use due process as your 
concern now when we're stepping on your precious area of guns. 
We want to get rid of the guns.
    I support this amendment, and I think if we are not to 
question anybody's sincerity, then I think folks have to step 
up to the plate and do what must be done despite the influence 
of the right wing or the people who protect the gun owners. If 
you want to do something about stopping America's children from 
being killed, not only by gangs but in our schools and by 
terrorists who are entering this country by hook or crook, you 
cannot say that you are concerned about this violence, you want 
to stop gangs, that you want to stop the killing and the 
murdering and the slaughtering unless you're willing to help 
identify--and even if you want to use the word ``profile,'' I 
don't care. You've got to help us get rid of the gangs, and 
this is just one small attempt, one small way to get at getting 
rid of these guns.
    Now, if that--if you want to accuse me of questioning 
somebody's sincerity, I stand accused. I put it there before 
you. It's out. Either you're going to support getting rid of 
guns and you're going to allow us to take a look at this file 
that's already being kept, the violent gang and terrorist 
organization file that's already maintained by the Attorney 
General, the names are there. The names are there. We can 
identify the people. We don't want them to buy guns. There is 
no legitimate excuse that you can give----
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The time of the gentlewoman has 
expired.
    Ms. Waters. Too bad. I had more to say.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. For what reason does the gentleman 
from Iowa, Mr. King, seek recognition?
    Mr. King. Move to strike the last word.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentleman is recognized for 5 
minutes.
    Mr. King. I thank the Chairman with regard to his statement 
on the people who are denied access to firearms and without 
regard to the statements by the gentlelady from California, I 
would point out that everyone--everyone who has been denied a 
firearm, according to Federal statute, has had due process. And 
whether you can out-due process it or not, that is the fact of 
the law. And the fact of the Constitution is it's a 
constitutional right to keep and bear arms. And if we're going 
to deny access to those firearms, then we have to guarantee a 
due process.
    Senator Kennedy didn't know that he was on the watchlist 
and was denied access to the plane at least three times and was 
allowed to board because someone knew him. We cannot ask people 
in this country to be checking the violent gang list and the 
terrorist organization file to determine if they can go to town 
and buy a gun.
    And so if we're going to set up some kind of due process so 
that this endeavor on the part of this amendment is realized, 
then we need to let anyone and everyone know if they are on the 
terrorist organization list or the violent gang list, and we 
have to give them a due process to get themselves off the list 
before they find themselves without a gun.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The question is on the amendment to 
the amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by the 
gentleman from Michigan, Mr. Conyers. Those in favor will say 
aye? Opposed, no?
    Mr. Conyers. Record vote, sir.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Well, the noes do appear to have 
it, but all those in favor of the Conyers amendment to the 
Forbes substitute will as your names are called answer aye, 
those opposed, no, and the clerk will call the roll.
    The Clerk. Mr. Hyde?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Coble?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Smith?
    Mr. Smith of Texas. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Smith, no. Mr. Gallegly?
    Mr. Gallegly. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Gallegly, no. Mr. Goodlatte?
    Mr. Goodlatte. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Goodlatte, no. Mr. Chabot?
    Mr. Chabot. Pass.
    The Clerk. Mr. Chabot, pass. Mr. Lungren?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Jenkins?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Cannon?
    Mr. Cannon. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Cannon, no. Mr. Bachus?
    Mr. Bachus. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Bachus, no. Mr. Inglis?
    Mr. Inglis. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Inglis, no. Mr. Hostettler?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Green?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Keller?
    Mr. Keller. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Keller, no. Mr. Issa?
    Mr. Issa. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Issa, no. Mr. Flake?
    Mr. Flake. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Flake, no. Mr. Pence?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Forbes?
    Mr. Forbes. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Forbes, no. Mr. King?
    Mr. King. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. King, no. Mr. Feeney?
    Mr. Feeney. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Feeney, no. Mr. Franks?
    Mr. Franks. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Franks, no. Mr. Gohmert?
    Mr. Gohmert. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Gohmert, no. Mr. Conyers?
    Mr. Conyers. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Conyers, aye. Mr. Berman?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Boucher?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Nadler?
    Mr. Nadler. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Nadler, aye. Mr. Scott?
    Mr. Scott. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Scott, aye. Mr. Watt?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Ms. Lofgren?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Ms. Jackson Lee?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Ms. Waters?
    Ms. Waters. Aye.
    The Clerk. Ms. Waters, aye. Mr. Meehan?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Delahunt?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Wexler?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Weiner?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Schiff?
    Mr. Schiff. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Schiff, aye. Ms. Sanchez?
    Ms. Sanchez. Aye.
    The Clerk. Ms. Sanchez, aye. Mr. Smith?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Van Hollen?
    Mr. Van Hollen. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Van Hollen, aye. Mr. Chairman?
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Chairman, no.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Members who wish to cast or change 
their votes? The gentleman from Wisconsin, Mr. Green?
    Mr. Green. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Green, no.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentleman from North Carolina, 
Mr. Coble?
    Mr. Coble. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Coble, no.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentleman from Ohio, Mr. 
Chabot?
    Mr. Chabot. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Chabot, no.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Further Members who wish to cast or 
change their vote? If not, the clerk will report.
    The Clerk. Mr. Chairman, there are 7 ayes and 18 noes.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. And the amendment is not agreed to.
    Are there further amendments? The gentleman from Virginia, 
Mr. Scott?
    Mr. Scott. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk, 
number 5.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The clerk will report amendment 
number 5.
    The Clerk. Amendment to the amendment in the nature of a 
substitute to H.R. 1279, offered by Mr. Scott of Virginia. At 
the end of the bill, add the following new section: Section 2, 
Study and report on evidence-based approaches proven to prevent 
crime----
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Without objection, the amendment is 
considered as read.
    [The amendment follows:]
      
      

  
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>

    Chairman Sensenbrenner. And the gentleman from Virginia is 
recognized for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Scott. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Chairman, this is a straightforward amendment. It 
requires the Director of the Office of Justice Programs to 
carry out an evidence-based study, a study of evidence-based 
approaches that have been proven to prevent crime, including 
gang crime and violent crime by youth and adults, and let us 
know the results.
    Mr. Chairman, I think in the give and take in this bill, we 
have to be clear that some of us question whether or not the 
provisions of the bill will actually reduce crime. We've seen 
this kind of debate technique going on on other issues. We hear 
today, for example, you talk about gangs, then you present the 
bill. During the war in Iraq, you talk about 9/11, then you 
talk about the Iraqi war. Well, Iraq didn't have anything to do 
with 9/11. It doesn't matter. It's kind of inferred, and people 
go along with the war because you talked about 9/11 first.
    And with Social Security, you talk about the shortfall, 
then you talk about private accounts. Well, private accounts 
don't have anything to do with the shortfall. Well, don't worry 
about it. If you agree there's a shortfall, you kind of get 
lulled into thinking you need some private accounts.
    What this amendment does is see whether or not talking 
about gangs, whether or not then talking about the bill makes 
any sense. The studies that have been presented to us have 
shown that the provisions of the bill will increase crime. And 
I fully expect that the study done by the Director of the 
Office of Justice Programs will remind us of what we already 
know.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Will the gentleman yield?
    Mr. Scott. I yield.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The amendment is drafted to the 
bill and not to the Forbes amendment in the nature of a 
substitute. Is the intention of the gentleman from Virginia to 
have this amendment be to the Forbes substitute?
    Mr. Scott. Yes, Mr. Chairman.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Without objection, the first line 
of the amendment is modified to indicate that it adds language 
to the Forbes substitute.
    The gentleman from Virginia, Mr. Forbes.
    Mr. Forbes. Mr. Chairman, I hope we'll reject this 
amendment. First of all, my good friend and colleague from 
Virginia is not very supportive of our bill. I don't think this 
was one of those complementary amendments. It basically is not 
a relevant amendment to this particular bill.
    If the Director of the Office of Justice Programs came back 
with a study, first of all, we'd argue what is evidence-based. 
I think my good friend would then say that that study was 
flawed and it was skewed and it was biased, and, you know, a 
number of things that might come back in.
    He has stated that all of these studies disprove the bill. 
I have similar actual factual documents and statistics that 
show that the underlying bill will help reduce crime and it 
will work. But this is a bill and this is a study which might 
be appropriate in some other bill, if he wants to do a study. 
But we don't need it for this particular gang bill. I hope we 
will reject this bill and move on with the base bill.
    Ms. Waters. Mr. Chairman?
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentlewoman from California, 
Ms. Waters?
    Ms. Waters. Oh, I know.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. For what purpose do you seek 
recognition?
    Ms. Waters. To irritate you. [Laughter.]
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Well, you don't get recognized for 
5 minutes to do that.
    Ms. Waters. No, that--to strike the last word.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. You do get recognized for 5 minutes 
for that purpose.
    Ms. Waters. I'll do that. Thank you very much.
    I simply would like to say to the gentleman who simply 
rejected my colleague's amendment based on the fact that he may 
interpret it in ways that won't help his legislation sometime 
down the line, I would ask him to show some sincere desire to 
cooperate with Members on this side of the aisle in addressing 
a very serious problem.
    It does not help to take an amendment such as this one, 
which is simply a study of evidence-based approaches, so that 
we can band together pertinent and factual information about 
what it takes to prevent crime.
    When you reject something as benign as this, you're sending 
a message to us. You're sending a signal that you do not wish 
to cooperate with us in any shape, form, or fashion. It is 
quite unfortunate that at a time when increasingly we have 
young people who are being killed in our schools and on our 
school yards, we have young people who have been killed with 
drive-by shootings, we have family members who are being killed 
simply because they happen to be a relative of a gang member, 
and we have young people killing each other about colors, about 
territories, that you would reject our efforts to be a part of 
fashioning public policy to get at these problems.
    It seems to me when we are desirous of meeting our 
colleagues halfway in addressing a real issue that confronts us 
all, we would have at least the generosity of spirit to embrace 
a bill that would ask for a study that would help us to make 
determinations about how to prevent crime.
    I am very sorry--and I know that what I say today will not 
influence you in any way--that you would still oppose this, and 
I suspect any other amendment that's brought before you today 
by those of us, no matter how well that amendment may be put 
together, how well-meaning that amendment or how much good that 
amendment could do, that it's going to be rejected because 
there is no intention by your or others to just work with us to 
try and get something done that makes good sense.
    So I know that, Mr. Chairman, you'd perhaps rather not have 
to keep calling on those of us who want to comment on these 
amendments, but, of course, that's what we're elected to do, 
and that's our right to do it. And I appreciate your--the fact 
that it causes this Committee to have to go on a little bit 
longer, but I think it's important for us to say, and I'm going 
to be generous. I yield back the balance of my time.
    Mr. Gohmert. Mr. Chairman? Mr. Chairman?
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentleman from Texas, Mr. 
Gohmert?
    Mr. Gohmert. Yes, I move to strike the last word.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentleman is recognized for 5 
minutes.
    Mr. Gohmert. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the 
gentlewoman's comments, but with regard to not wanting to 
cooperate, let me tell you, there is an intense desire to 
cooperate. There is an intense desire to have due process. I've 
been speaking with Mr. Forbes about his act. I pored through it 
a number of times. I've gone through it with the staff. I have 
found them very cooperative in trying to work with language 
that will make it directed right at the people that this should 
go toward. But when you're wanting to propose a study when we 
have had decades of on-the-job studies, some of us, like 
myself, have sat in a courtroom, have handled thousands of 
cases, and let me tell you, when it comes to guns, you get rid 
of guns, the only people that won't have them will be the law-
abiding people. The criminals get them. Out of thousands of 
cases, I don't recall a single case where anybody ever bought 
it at a gun show or bought it in a sporting goods store. They 
stole it, they traded, the bought it out of trunks, but they 
did not go to a gun store to get it.
    So I am very concerned about stopping the process and 
having further study when some of us have so much on-the-job 
training, while there are people dying and there are people 
crying and there are people begging for help. And we're going 
to turn a blind eye to that and call for another study? I would 
encourage voting no against the amendment because we have the 
information. We need to move forward and help these poor people 
who are being killed and are being hurt. Thank you.
    Ms. Waters. Will the gentleman yield?
    Mr. Gohmert. I'm yielding back my time to the Chairman.
    Mr. Delahunt. Mr. Chairman?
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentleman from Massachusetts, 
Mr. Delahunt.
    Mr. Delahunt. Yes, I want to acknowledge that I have 
respect for the new Member here, Mr. Gohmert. I think he has 
made since he's been here a good contribution. And I understand 
what he's saying. I think what we are--and I said it earlier, 
when I don't think you were in the room. What we're trying to 
do is accomplish something that works. That's the bottom line. 
Let's not call it tough, let's not call it soft. And you 
weren't here in the aftermath of the Columbine shooting, but 
there was a real concern among all Members what was happening 
in terms of youth violence. The speaker, this current speaker, 
Speaker Hastert, convened a bipartisan group, 12 on each side, 
that met on a rather frequent basis.
    It was interesting. It was interesting in the sense that 
each of the Members of that task force was asked to bring 
somebody to the group and give his or her thinking and 
observations and provide the studies that were available. And 
not one of them--and many, of course, were brought by Members 
on the Republican side--not one of them would recommend 
anything that's incorporated in Mr. Forbes's bill. Not out of 
ideological perspective, but based upon what works and what's 
effective.
    You know, I see, for example, references in here to, you 
know, implicating murders. I mean, I was a State prosecutor. I 
know the Feds. They don't know how to try murder cases. And if 
they did, they'd screw it up in most cases. So the point is, is 
to try to do it in a way that makes sense. I think that's the 
point that the gentlelady is making. It's not a question of 
studies. We came out of that bipartisan task force and passed, 
I think, under the leadership of Mr. Scott and--who was your--
was it--? Who was the chair at the time?
    I forget who, but on the Republican chair, you know, 
Representative McCollum. We got a bill through almost 
unanimously. The problem is we didn't fund it. We didn't fund 
it. And that's what's missing here oftentimes. When we talk 
about these programs and we reach a consensus, and as 
authorizers we get it through and we all stand up and take a 
bow, but then it drifts off and no one wants to come in with 
the money.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentleman yields back.
    The question is on the Scott of Virginia amendment to the 
Forbes of Virginia amendment in the nature of a substitute. 
Those in favor will say aye? Opposed, no?
    The noes appear to have it. The noes have it, and the 
amendment is not agreed to.
    Are there further amendments?
    Mr. Schiff. Mr. Chairman?
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentleman from California, Mr. 
Schiff.
    Mr. Schiff. I have an amendment at the desk numbered 024.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The clerk will report the 
amendment.
    The Clerk. Amendment to the amendment in the nature of a 
substitute to H.R. 1279, offered by Mr. Schiff of California. 
Page 26, strike lines 9 through 14 and insert the following: 
``(d) Authorization of appropriations. (1) In general. There 
are authorized''----
    Mr. Schiff. Mr. Chairman, I would request that the 
amendment be considered as read.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Without objection, so ordered.
    [The amendment follows:]
    <GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
    
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentleman is recognized for 5 
minutes. And before starting the clock, we do have an 
Immigration Subcommittee hearing beginning at 4 o'clock. It was 
the intention of the Chair to recess the Committee at 4 
o'clock. I'd like to have a show of hands of how many Members 
of the Committee intend to debate this, because I would just as 
soon not recess the Committee in the middle of the debate 
because that way I don't think everybody will have the full 
benefit of the arguments on both sides. So aside from Mr. 
Schiff, who wants to debate this? The Schiff amendment to the 
Forbes substitute. Ms. Waters wants----
    Ms. Waters. Yes, I am going to debate it.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Okay, she wants to debate 
everything. Anybody else? Mr. Forbes does. Well, let's try and 
see if we can get this done in 10 minutes.
    And the gentleman's recognized for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Schiff. Mr. Chairman, thank you. I'll try to be quick. 
You've been very generous on time in the hearing on this.
    I think, as I mentioned in response to the debate on the 
substitute bill, that the bill really needs to have both 
components. It needs to have elements of suppression and 
deterrence, but it also has to have elements of prevention. The 
legislation--and this is an issue I worked on in the State 
legislature even after I was a prosecutor. In 2000 I introduced 
with one of my colleagues a bill in California that allocated 
for the first time as much money to prevention as to the 
suppression of crime, then $120 million for successful local 
juvenile crime prevention programs and an equivalent amount for 
cops. And it was very effective, that two-prong attack, 
suppression and prevention.
    What I'm offering in this amendment are the prevention 
components that exist in a bill I introduced with Mary Bono as 
well as in the bipartisan Senate bill. First, the amendment 
doubles the authorization for funding to $100 million each year 
for the next 5 years, with the requirement that 50 percent of 
the funding be used to support criminal gang enforcement teams 
and 50 percent of the funding be available for community-based 
programs to provide for crime prevention and intervention 
services.
    Second, the amendment would expand Project Safe 
Neighborhoods to require U.S. attorneys to identify and 
prosecute significant gangs within their district, coordinating 
such prosecutions among local, State, and Federal law 
enforcement, and coordinating criminal street gang enforcement 
teams in designated high-intensity interstate gang areas.
    The amendment would also authorize $150 million over 5 
years to support anti-gang efforts such as expansion of the 
Project Safe Neighborhoods program that engages U.S. attorneys 
in these efforts, and the National DAs Association that 
testified on this spoke in support of that program just last 
week.
    The amendment also reauthorizes the Gang Resistance 
Education and Training program, GREAT. This is a school-based 
life skills program taught by police officers, and it has a 
very successful track record in teaching our youth in 
preventing gang crime. This amendment authorizes $20 million 
for each of the next 5 years for that program.
    My colleague from Virginia is correct. The base bill 
doesn't cut existing funding. It does fail to reauthorize the 
GREAT program and it is a significant departure from the Senate 
bill in that the bulk of the prevention funding of the Senate 
proposal is cut out of the base bill. It would be restored in 
this amendment. So by this amendment we would have an 
equivalent amount of preventive funding and a greater amount of 
funding for even gang prosecution team efforts. It would match 
the Senate bill, and I would urge my colleagues' support.
    And I yield back----
    Mr. Conyers. Would the gentleman yield?
    Mr. Schiff. I'd be happy to yield to the gentleman.
    Mr. Conyers. I want to indicate my support for the 
amendment.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Does the gentleman yields back?
    Mr. Schiff. Yes, Mr. Chairman.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentleman from Virginia, Mr. 
Forbes.
    Mr. Forbes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, I hope 
we'll reject this amendment. But let me first of all say that I 
agree with Mr. Schiff that many of the programs in here are 
very good programs, and that we need prevention. It's just this 
bill is about lasering in and taking down these criminal 
networks and not necessarily all the prevention programs. I put 
up a chart over here that shows almost 2.1--actually almost 
$2.2 billion of programs that we utilize currently for either 
prevention--some prosecution, but a lot of this is prevention. 
I can't include all of those programs in this particular bill, 
and if I leave out some of them, somebody else is going to be 
saying why isn't that program in this particular bill.
    On your section (d) and the back section that you have 
where you have authorization, I think the appropriate place for 
that, your section 205, would be the DOJ reauthorization bill. 
And I'll certainly work with you on those programs and the DOJ 
reauthorization bill. And your section 203 and 204 are good 
programs that I'm happy to work and talk to you about. But we 
don't need these programs put in this bill at this particular 
point in time, and I hope that we will reject the amendment.
    Mr. Schiff. Would the gentleman yield briefly?
    Mr. Forbes. I'd be happy to yield.
    Mr. Schiff. I appreciate the gentleman yielding.
    My colleague says this isn't the place for the prevention 
funding. We passed numerous bills in the past which have had 
both deterrent components and prevention components. It's what 
makes a bill comprehensive. And plainly, as my colleague 
acknowledges, you really need both sides of the effort to have 
a successful approach at dealing with gang crime. So there's a 
well-worn path and tradition in the House of including both in 
the same bill. We would be departing from that tradition, and 
indeed I think that component is what has buoyed the bipartisan 
support in the Senate for the bill. It would have the same 
impact, I would hope, in the House. And I thank the gentleman 
for yielding.
    Mr. Forbes. Well, I think first of all, in response to the 
gentleman, that while all these programs and many of the 
programs listed up here might be good, again that's not the 
purpose of this program. The purpose of this program is to 
laser in on the networks and pull them down. And just as my 
good friend from Virginia talks about determining what works 
and what doesn't and have evidence-based approaches on what 
works, we don't have that on all the prevention programs. But 
what we know from all the prosecutors, all the law enforcement 
does work, what all of us agree will work, is if we pull down 
these criminal gang networks and get rid of the gangs, that's 
the best prevention program that we can do. That's what this 
bill lasers in on and that's what I hope we'll stick to, the 
base bill.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentleman yields back.
    The gentlewoman from California, Ms. Waters.
    Ms. Waters. Yes. Mr. Chairman and Members, I think this is 
another example of a lack of cooperation from my friends on the 
opposite side of the aisle. Even though I don't support and did 
not support Mr. Schiff's substitute amendment because I think 
that his bill carried--I know that his bill carried with it 
mandatory minimum sentencing, death penalty, and some other 
things that I cannot embrace, but his bill certainly should 
have been embraced, his supplement should have been embraced, 
some of it, by the Members on the opposite side of the aisle. 
As I recall, early on in this debate my friends on the opposite 
side of the aisle talked about being concerned about prevention 
and even held out that their bill had in it, along with the law 
and order-type approach, some prevention. However, I don't see 
any real willingness to embrace prevention in any shape, form, 
or fashion here today. As a matter of fact, if you do not 
support Mr. Schiff's amendments that would put some money into 
prevention, then perhaps if Mr. Schiff had an amendment that 
would authorize funding for the juvenile justice bill that was 
referred to earlier today by Mr. Scott, that's known as the 
Juvenile Justice Accountability Block Grant Act, where he 
mentioned that we thought we had authorized a bill and tried to 
get $500 million, it turned out to get $55 million, perhaps if 
you don't want prevention in your bill, then perhaps this 
amendment could be rearranged so that we could authorize the 
full funding of the prevention that you don't have in your bill 
but you do embrace because you think that that is important.
    I don't know, but I would put that out there as a 
suggestion. If in fact you believe in prevention but you don't 
want to muddy up your bill with prevention, perhaps you would 
support an amendment that would put the money into the other 
program.
    Now, as for all the programs that you saw listed, we have 
no way of knowing exactly what you had up there. We do know 
that there is something called the CDBG, the Community 
Development Block Grant, that is being cut by this 
Administration by 35 percent. Much of that money goes to 
501(c)(3)'s in cities and towns to deal with at-risk youth and 
to deal with gang problems. And so I would like to take a look 
that you put up there because we could easily evaluate that and 
see what that really is. But I want you to know that just in 
case CDBG was there, the block grant, that most of the cities 
depend on so very much to deal with some of these problems, is 
being cut. I mean it is being slaughtered by this 
Administration and perhaps even transferred out of HUD, which 
is quite unfortunate. And I suppose if I take a close look at 
the other programs that you have put up there, I can tell you 
exactly what they're getting, what that money is used for, and 
we'd be able to make a determination about whether or not that 
really is the kind of prevention money that this gentleman is 
referring to.
    Mr. Schiff. Will the gentlewoman yield?
    Ms. Waters. I yield to the gentleman from California.
    Mr. Schiff. I just wanted to say it's great to have you 
back on my side.
    Ms. Waters. Just for a moment.
    Mr. Schiff. It's not a future commitment, I understand 
that. Thank you. And I yield back to the gentlelady.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Does the gentlelady yield back?
    Ms. Waters. Oh, yes. I'm sorry. Yes, I yield back.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Well, the Chair is going to put the 
question. If the gentleman from Virginia seeks recognition, 
then we're going to have to adjourn the Committee. Okay.
    The question is on the amendment by the gentleman from 
California, Mr. Schiff, to the amendment in the nature of a 
substitute by the gentleman from Virginia, Mr. Forbes. Those in 
favor will say aye? Opposed, no?
    The noes appear to have it.
    Mr. Schiff. Mr. Chairman, on that I request a recorded 
vote.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. A recorded vote is ordered. Those 
in favor of the Schiff amendment to the Forbes substitute will, 
as your names are called, answer aye. Those opposed, no. 
Immediately after this rollcall, the Committee will adjourn.
    The clerk will call the roll.
    The Clerk. Mr. Hyde?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Coble?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Smith?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Gallegly?
    Mr. Gallegly. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Gallegly, no. Mr. Goodlatte?
    Mr. Goodlatte. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Goodlatte, no. Mr. Chabot?
    Mr. Chabot. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Chabot, no. Mr. Lungren?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Jenkins?
    Mr. Jenkins. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Jenkins, no. Mr. Cannon?
    Mr. Cannon. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Cannon, no. Mr. Bachus?
    Mr. Bachus. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Bachus, no. Mr. Inglis?
    Mr. Inglis. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Inglis, no. Mr. Hostettler?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Green?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Keller?
    Mr. Keller. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Keller, no. Mr. Issa?
    Mr. Issa. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Issa, no. Mr. Flake?
    Mr. Flake. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Flake, no. Mr. Pence?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Forbes?
    Mr. Forbes. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Forbes, no. Mr. King?
    Mr. King. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. King, no. Mr. Feeney?
    Mr. Feeney. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Feeney, no. Mr. Franks?
    Mr. Franks. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Franks, no. Mr. Gohmert?
    Mr. Gohmert. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Gohmert, no. Mr. Conyers?
    Mr. Conyers. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Conyers, aye. Mr. Berman?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Boucher?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Nadler?
    Mr. Nadler. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Nadler, aye. Mr. Scott?
    Mr. Scott. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Scott, aye. Mr. Watt?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Ms. Lofgren?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Ms. Jackson Lee?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Ms. Waters?
    Ms. Waters. Aye.
    The Clerk. Ms. Waters, aye. Mr. Meehan?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Delahunt?
    Mr. Delahunt. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Delahunt, aye. Mr. Wexler?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Weiner?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Schiff?
    Mr. Schiff. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Schiff, aye. Ms. Sanchez?
    Ms. Sanchez. Aye.
    The Clerk. Ms. Sanchez, aye. Mr. Smith?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Van Hollen?
    Mr. Van Hollen. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Van Hollen, aye. Mr. Chairman?
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Chairman, no.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Members who wish to cast or change 
their vote? The gentleman from Wisconsin, Mr. Green?
    Mr. Green. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Green, no.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentleman from North Carolina, 
Mr. Coble?
    Mr. Coble. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Coble, no.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Further Members who wish to cast or 
change their vote? If not, the clerk will report.
    The Clerk. Mr. Chairman, there are 8 ayes and 18 noes.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. And the amendment is not agreed to.
    The Committee stands adjourned.
    [Whereupon, at 4:02 p.m., the Committee was adjourned.]



                            BUSINESS MEETING



                              (continued)

                       WEDNESDAY, APRIL 20, 2005

    The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:04 a.m., in 
Room 2141, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. F. James 
Sensenbrenner, Jr. [Chairman of the Committee] presiding.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The Committee will be in order. A 
working quorum is present.
    [Intervening business.]
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. When the Committee last recessed, 
pending was the adoption of H.R. 1279, the ``Gang Deterrence 
and Community Protection Act.'' The gentleman from North 
Carolina, on behalf of the Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, 
and Homeland Security reported the bill favorably and moved its 
favorable recommendation to the full House. The gentleman from 
Virginia, Mr. Forbes, had offered an amendment in the nature of 
a substitute to which several second degree amendments were 
offered and defeated.
    We will now resume consideration of the Forbes amendment in 
the nature of a substitute to H.R. 1279. Are there any further 
second degree amendments to the Forbes amendment in the nature 
of a substitute? Gentleman from Virginia, Mr. Scott.
    Mr. Scott. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have an amendment at 
the desk----
    Mr. Carson. The clerk will report the amendment.
    The Clerk. Amendment to the amendment in the nature of a 
substitute to H.R. 1279 officer by Mr. Scott of Virginia. Page 
3, line 16, strike subsection ``(b)(2).''
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentleman from Virginia is 
recognized for 5 minutes.
    [The amendment follows:]
    <GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
    
    Mr. Scott. Mr. Chairman, this amendment strikes a civil 
asset forfeiture provision added to the bill. I don't know 
where it came from. It wasn't part of the bill when it left 
Subcommittee, but somewhere along the lines it got paper 
clipped onto the back of the bill. We already have a provision 
for criminal asset forfeiture which means that--which requires 
that we actually convict somebody before we take their property 
as proceeds of or used in furtherance of a crime. This 
provision just allows the Department of Justice to go after 
somebody's property whether they've been convicted or not.
    We have been dealing with this issue over the last several 
years, Mr. Chairman, and I would hope that we would not just 
stick this onto a bill without any consideration, no 
Subcommittee hearings or anything else.
    I would yield back the balance of my time. Wait a minute. I 
yield to the gentleman from Michigan.
    Mr. Conyers. Could we ask the author of this bill, Mr. 
Forbes, what he knows about the provision that you're 
commenting on, sir?
    Mr. Scott. Reclaiming my time. Mr. Chairman, I will yield 
back my time. I think the gentleman, my colleague from Virginia 
is seeking his own time.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The other gentleman from Virginia, 
Mr. Forbes.
    Mr. Forbes. Mr. Chairman, this is a provision that----
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Do you move to strike the last 
word?
    Mr. Forbes. Yes, move to strike the last word.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. If so, you are recognized for 5 
minutes.
    Mr. Forbes. Mr. Chairman, this is a provision that is not 
absolutely essential for bringing down these criminal gang 
networks. In the spirit of cooperation with my colleague from 
Virginia, I hope that we'll accept this amendment.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentleman yield back?
    Mr. Forbes. I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The question is on the amendment 
offered by the gentleman from Virginia, Mr. Scott. Those in 
favor will say aye.
    Opposed, no.
    The ayes appear to have it. The ayes have it. The amendment 
is agreed to.
    Are there further amendments? Gentleman from Virginia, Mr. 
Scott.
    Mr. Scott. I have an amendment at the desk, No. 2.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The clerk will report Scott No. 2.
    The Clerk. Amendment to the amendment in the nature of a 
substitute to H.R. 1279 offered by Mr. Scott of Virginia.
    On page 2, line 9 delete the phrase ``to death or''.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Without objection, the amendment is 
considered as read, and the gentleman from Virginia is 
recognized for 5 minutes.
    [The amendment follows:]
    <GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
    
    Mr. Scott. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, this 
series of amendments deletes the death penalty from the bill. 
In 2000 the Federal Government identified serious problems of 
racial and geographic disparity in the Federal death penalty, 
and although we have passed the Innocence Protection Act, we 
haven't done anything about racial and geographical disparity 
in the death penalty. We need to fix that before we start 
adding new death penalties to the bill.
    Just last week the New York legislature considered the 
death penalty. It didn't reinstate it. New Mexico, Connecticut 
and Montana are all considering repealing their death 
penalties. North Carolina, Maryland, New Jersey and Illinois 
all have or are considering moratoriums on executions. We know 
that there is a strong consensus amongst criminologists that 
the death penalty is not a deterrent to homicide, and in fact 
it may have a brutalizing effect and actually increase 
homicides, and whatever deterrent effect it has, it has even 
less effect on young adults that will be affected by this 
legislation. So we have already just recently provided a 
prohibition against executing juveniles. You have the same 
kinds of problems with younger adults in that it does not serve 
a useful purpose.
    Many people are convicted and sentenced to death by error. 
About 2 out of every 3 capital judgments reviewed by courts has 
reversed the death penalty. We have inadequate legal 
representation that has a racially disparate impact.
    And I would hope, Mr. Chairman, that we wouldn't, as we 
consider what to do about gangs, I would hope we would not load 
it up with this controversial idea that the death penalty might 
actually reduce the crimes.
    I'll yield back.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Gentleman from Virginia, Mr. 
Forbes?
    Mr. Forbes. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentleman is recognized for 5 
minutes.
    Mr. Forbes. Mr. Chairman, I hope that we will reject this 
amendment and the other amendments which would gut the death 
penalty our of this provision. As we are debating this bill, a 
Federal trial is going on in the Commonwealth of Virginia where 
one of these gang members and several of his compatriots 
bragged to law enforcement agents that he had the power to 
order the murder of anybody he wanted to and there would be 
nothing that they could do to stop him. Unfortunately, 4 months 
later he was successful in that, killed a witness that was 
going to be testifying against him in trial.
    This is a debate over the death penalty. The one thing I 
would agree with my colleague over is that this is the essence 
of whether or not we're going to have a death penalty or not. 
If we're going to have a death penalty the people this applies 
to are the most heinous and worse people that we can be dealing 
with, and that's where we want the death penalty.
    I would, however, strongly differ with him, no many how 
many times he says it, there is no consensus among 
criminologists that the death penalty is not a deterrent to 
additional crimes. In fact, just the opposite. There are 
numerous studies that show that the death penalty is an 
incredibly strong prevention and deterrent to criminal crimes. 
I hope that we will not rip it out of this bill, that we will 
leave the death penalty provisions intact, and that we will 
defeat this amendment.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Gentleman yield back?
    Mr. Forbes. I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Gentleman from Michigan?
    Mr. Conyers. Mr. Chairman, I rise to support the amendment 
of the gentleman from Virginia.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentleman is recognized for 5 
minutes.
    Mr. Conyers. First of all, I'd like to ask Mr. Scott, is 
this the main point in this bill, Mr. Scott, that we'll be 
discussing, the death penalty and its usefulness in fighting 
crime?
    Mr. Scott. If the gentleman would yield. Mr. Chairman, the 
consensus amongst criminologists is that the death penalty will 
not serve a constructive purpose in the bill, will not reduce 
crime, may increase crime, and whatever good the death penalty 
does, it has even less effect with young people. That's why the 
death penalty was shown to unconstitutional as it applies to 
juveniles.
    Again, if our goal is to reduce crime, the imposition of 
the death penalty in this case will not do it. In the case 
where somebody's ordering executions, they can already get life 
imprisonment. To suggest that that's a nothing, that you can't 
do anything to me but lock you up for life without parole, 
that's--and I don't think that position is well taken. You can 
lock somebody up for life, and I think that has shown to be a 
sufficient deterrent, whatever deterrent there may be.
    Mr. Conyers. Well, I've got a staff paper here that goes to 
the wrongful convictions of people who have been sentenced to 
death, over 100 in the United States, later to be exonerated. 
We remember that in Illinois former Governor Ryan declared a 
moratorium in his State after 13 people were released from 
death row because of their innocence.
    We are confronted with the statistic that nearly 80 percent 
of those convictions, whose convictions were reversed, did not 
get the death penalty at retrial, and that more than 2 out of 
every 3 capital judgments reviewed by the courts during a 23-
year period were flawed. In other words, this paper goes on and 
on. The American Bar Association has pointed out inadequate 
legal representation in capital cases, and the fact that many 
of the people that are representing--court appointed attorneys 
representing these defendants are very poorly compensated, and 
many of them are new lawyers. And then the gentleman from 
Virginia mentioned the racially disproportionate impact of the 
death penalty. Current death row populations show racially 
discriminatory impact of death penalty sentencing. In Alabama 
46 percent of those sentenced to death are black; California 36 
percent; Florida the same number; Illinois 63 percent; Maryland 
72 percent; Pennsylvania 63 percent; Virginia 39 percent. So a 
defendant's likelihood of receiving the death penalty 
correlates with the victim's race.
    I was just wondering if my friend Mr. Forbes has had a 
chance to review any of this material either at the 
Subcommittee level or does it have any impact upon his 
insistence that the death penalty be kept in this legislation 
dealing with your offenders? I yield to him at this point.
    Mr. Forbes. Thank you for yielding. First of all, let me 
respond to the first part of the question that my colleague 
from Virginia said. The individual that ordered the murders 
that I was referencing earlier was actually in jail and in 
prison when he did it. To say that a life sentence would have 
deterred him, would not have, but I would suggest capital 
punishment could have.
    Also, Mr. Chairman, I would suggest that consistently the 
statistics show that capital punishment is a substantial 
deterrent. The most up to date and exhaustive study produced by 
researchers at Emory University in 2002 concludes that each 
execution prevents on average about 18 murders. The academic 
study's findings are confirmed by the recent experience of 
those States that actively enforce the death penalty and those 
States that do not allow capital punishment.
    In 1984 this Nation's prisons held 810 inmates serving 
sentences for murder, who once before in their lives had been 
convicted of murder. Had these killers been executed for their 
first murder conviction, 821 innocent men, women and children 
would have lived.
    I can go on, but I think my time has expired, Mr. Chairman, 
but we have numerous other studies that buttress the same 
conclusions.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The time of the gentleman has 
expired.
    Mr. Issa. Mr. Chairman?
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentleman from California, Mr. 
Issa.
    Mr. Issa. Move to strike the last word.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentleman is recognized for 5 
minutes.
    Mr. Issa. Since we are going to talk about the death 
penalty I just wanted to pick up for clarification on something 
Mr. Scott said. I think perhaps you didn't mean what I heard, 
which was that the death penalty was somehow less of a 
deterrent to people under 18 and that's why the Supreme Court 
struck it down. That wasn't my understanding of the Supreme 
Court decision at all. You didn't mean to say that, did you, 
that that was the basis for the Supreme Court decision? And I 
yield to the gentleman.
    Mr. Scott. Well, they said that the mind is not 
sufficiently formed and that you're not making long-range 
determinations, so it did not serve a--it didn't serve as a 
deterrent. Yeah, that's what I said, it does not serve as a 
deterrent.
    Mr. Issa. Okay. So reclaiming my time, in light of the 
Supreme Court decision, we're not talking about that group of 
people. They're not covered by this. We're talking about adults 
here in this gang activity.
    Mr. Scott. If the gentleman would yield?
    Mr. Issa. Yes, I would.
    Mr. Scott. The finding was that the mind was not fully 
developed until somewhere around 25, and so executing people 18 
and under was unconstitutional. For the same rationale it is 
less effective for those 18 to 25 than those over 25. It is 
much less effective as a deterrent for those under 18, but the 
18 to 25, the rationale in the bill would apply to a lesser 
extent 18 to 25.
    Mr. Issa. Reclaiming my time, I thank the gentleman. And 
without getting into the particulars of the death penalty, I 
certainly will be supporting--or opposing this amendment 
because I believe the Supreme Court has spoken, set a date for 
this purpose, and having been 18 to 25 and having a 24-year-
old, who shows all signs of taking every minute of that to get 
to where he should be in maturity, I would certainly agree with 
the gentleman that older is better, but I think we also would 
find that people over 25 commit crimes dramatically lower too. 
That shouldn't be incarceration or enforcement if it leads to 
safer streets, and that's why I'll be opposing this amendment, 
but I do thank the gentleman for clarifying his position on 
youth.
    I yield back the balance of my time. Thank you, Mr. 
Chairman.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Gentleman from California, Mr. 
Berman.
    Mr. Berman. Yes, Mr. Chairman. I support the amendment and 
I yield my time to the Ranking Member.
    Mr. Conyers. I thank the gentleman. I turn now to my 
friend, Mr. Forbes. Again, because I'm sorry he heard about 
this one fellow in prison who made this brash statement that 
motivates him so strongly, but what about the questions that I 
raised, Mr. Forbes, about the wrongful convictions, namely over 
100 people that have been sentenced to death were later 
exonerated; that Governor Ryan of Illinois declared a 
moratorium after 13 people were released from death row because 
of their innocence; and that nearly 80 percent of those who 
were retried did not get the death penalty at retrial; that the 
American Bar Association finds there are gross inadequate legal 
misrepresentations or inadequate representations on the part of 
the new lawyers who are very frequently poorly compensated; and 
the racially disproportionate impact of the death penalty as it 
applies to young people?
    And it seems to me that those four considerations require 
us to do a little bit more than worry about what one fellow in 
a prison bragged that he could do. I mean I think this has got 
to--the American Bar was taking a little wider view of this. 
The General Accounting Office reviewed numerous studies of 
patterns or racial discrimination in death penalty sentencing, 
and I would feel a little bit better if you at least 
acknowledged these considerations, and perhaps choose not to 
agree with them, but for us just to skip over this, we're 
talking life and death here, and I think it's a pretty serious 
matter.
    Mr. Forbes. Yield?
    Mr. Conyers. Of course, with pleasure.
    Mr. Forbes. Thank you for yielding.
    Mr. Chairman, I would say that I would equally feel better 
if we gave consideration to individuals like Michelle Guest, 
who was the witness who came in here whose husband was murdered 
and she was left a widow and she was left with 9 children 
without a father.
    And if you continue looking, if there are procedural 
problems we have to look at, feel free to look at those. If 
there are competency for counsel problems to look at, look at 
those.
    But also look at at the same time a May 2002 study by the 
University of Colorado at Denver, which is probably the most 
exhaustive study, 6,143 death sentences from 1997--1977 to 
1997. And when they compared the changes in States murder rates 
to the probability of being executed for murder, they found not 
only that each execution has a significant deterrent effect, 
but that each commutation of death sentences increases 
homicides between 4 and 5.
    So when I'm looking at individuals who are being murdered 
and killed by violent gang criminals, I want to give some 
consideration to them as well, and I believe that this death 
penalty will do that. As the gentleman from California 
mentioned, it will make our streets continue to be safer from 
some of these violent criminals. That's why I support the death 
penalty and the provisions that are included in this bill.
    Mr. Conyers. Do you have any comments about the racially 
disproportionate impact of the death penalty as it is visited 
upon our citizens here?
    Mr. Forbes. Well, Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman would 
yield, I would say that if there are, as I mentioned, 
disparities, whether they be racial in nature or from 
incompetent counsel, I think certainly there are things that 
need to be explored and examined, but that doesn't mean that we 
should do away with the death penalty or that we should stop 
trying to seek the death penalty for violent murderers who are 
continuing to create more and more victims every single day 
that we continue to debate this bill.
    Mr. Conyers. Well, let me ask Mr. Scott of Virginia whether 
or not these matters have been adequately explored at the 
Subcommittee level because, look, no one is more sympathetic to 
Mrs. Guest--Ms. Guest, who was before the Committee----
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The time of the gentleman from 
California has expired.
    The gentleman from North Carolina, Mr. Watt?
    Mr. Watt. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. As so often happens in 
this Committee, I think we are kind of talking past each other 
here, and I'm going to refrain from getting into the debate 
about whether the death penalty is a deterrent, an effective 
deterrent, a worthwhile deterrent. I think--I certainly have 
strong feelings about that issue, but I think we'll find that 
on that issue there have been reports that have--or studies or 
statistical analyses that have been all over the lot. And 
whenever I hear a defense of the death penalty as a deterrent 
I'm always struck by the accompanying argument that describes 
the most egregious kinds of crimes that have taken place, and 
it's hard to not feel some anguish and disappointment about the 
nature of the crimes that are being described.
    What I think is uncontroverted, however, in this whole 
debate is the point that Mr. Conyers has been making. You can 
have studies, you do have studies all over the lot about 
whether the death penalty is a deterrent. What there aren't 
studies all over the lot about is that there have been just an 
untold number of mistakes made in the administration of the 
death penalty, people being put to death, being put on death 
row who were subsequently determined to be absolutely innocent 
of the crime with which they were charged.
    What there is no dispute about in the research is that in 
the administration of the death penalty there is just absolute 
clarity to the fact that there is a racial bias that 
minorities, African-Americans tend, certainly in every case, in 
every study I've seen, have the death penalty administered 
against them disproportionately than members of the majority 
race.
    so when I see a bill and look at the specific provisions 
that Mr. Scott in his amendment is proposing to delete, and I 
see time after time after time after time after time, there 
were five, six, five provisions I guess that Mr. Scott is 
proposing to delete. In every single one of those the word 
``shall'' appears. There is no discretion about whether the 
death penalty will be administered in those cases, in every 
single one of those instances.
    And when I know that behind that, before you get to the 
``shall administer the death penalty'' there is racial bias and 
there are documented mistakes that have been made in whether 
the person is guilty or not. To have a long drawn out argument 
about whether the death penalty is a deterrent, it seems to me, 
misses the point. And so regardless of where you are in your 
beliefs about whether the death penalty is an effective 
deterrent or not, surely you don't want people put to death by 
mistake.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The time of the gentleman has 
expired.
    Mr. Watt. Mr. Chairman? Could I just finish my sentence? I 
ask for 30 seconds.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Without objection.
    Mr. Watt. Surely my colleagues would not want the death 
penalty administered in the ``shall'' fashion on a racially 
discriminatory basis. And I just, you know, I think we're 
missing the point to have a long drawn out debate about 
deterrence. Until we can get the administration of the death 
penalty right racially and without mistakes, to talk about 
deterrence I think just misses the point.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Time of the gentleman has once 
again expired.
    For what purpose does the gentleman from California seek 
recognition?
    Mr. Lungren. To strike the last word.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentleman is recognized for 5 
minutes.
    Mr. Lungren. Mr. Chairman, on this issue it is important 
for us to have a debate and a record that is accurate and does 
not leave certain misimpressions on that record. As the 
Attorney General of the State of California I was required to 
represent the State in all criminal matters following 
conviction, including all death penalty cases. I had a capital 
case project which specifically involved the prosecutors who 
were exclusively involved in death penalty cases or nearly 
exclusively involved in death penalty cases.
    I had the opportunity to argue a death penalty case before 
the United States Supreme Court. Interestingly enough, I won 
that particular argument, and the death penalty was continued. 
Subsequently, that convicted murderer--multiple murderers--
sentence was changed from death to life imprisonment based on 
what some would call a technicality. It had nothing to do with 
guilt or innocence, had nothing to do with exoneration. Had to 
do with the fact of a claim of lack of competent counsel. And 
the interesting thing is that I call it a technicality because 
the counsel's--the argument against the counsel's 
representation was that this public defender was involved in 
running for Congress at the time, and he was distracted by 
running for Congress such that he couldn't give enough time.
    Well, I went back and looked at the record. The person he 
was running against at that time happened to be me. I know how 
much time that person spent in Congress, and I know there 
wasn't any possibility that the amount of time he spent in 
running for office distracted him from an appropriate time 
commitment to that defendant. And yet if we were to take what 
was stated by the gentleman on the other side at face value, 
they would say that there was a mistake, that this multiple 
murderer, who murdered two gang members because they looked at 
him the wrong way, then went back and murdered two witnesses 
because they could identify him following the murder, was 
somehow not in fact guilty of first degree murder, was not in 
fact guilty of first degree murder with special circumstances, 
was not in fact guilty of murder multiple times. In fact he 
was.
    But what has just been presented on the record is that his 
case would be one of those suggesting that he had wrongly been 
sentenced to death, and that somehow this proves that the 
courts are not doing the proper thing in allowing people who do 
not deserve the death penalty to be sent to death.
    Secondly, I would just suggest that some of the statements 
that say this mandatorily sentences someone to death is a 
misreading of the bill. If you look at page 2, lines 8 and 9, 
which the gentleman's amendment seeks to change, it says, ``If 
the gang crime results in the death of any person he be 
sentenced to death or life in prison.'' That doesn't say he's 
mandatorily to receive death.
    Thirdly, this is within the Federal system, so recitations 
of the problems with Illinois are not relevant here. This is in 
the Federal system.
    Fourthly, for one to get the death penalty one has to go 
through a bifurcated trial in which guilt or innocence is 
determined in the first instance, and then there's a separate 
process by which a determination of whether the aggravating 
circumstances outweigh the mitigating circumstances. So even if 
you fit everything that is said in this bill, there is no 
suggestion that one is mandatorily sentenced to death.
    Lastly, this idea that somehow the Supreme Court's recent 
decision on the death penalty should give us guidance in this 
case is kind of interesting because we received a 
communication, written communication from the Judicial 
Conference in which they suggest we not pass this bill because 
this would put it in the Federal system, and according to the 
Judicial Conference, they have very little experience dealing 
with juveniles. So I find of interesting in this instance that 
we have the court on the one hand trying to tell us what we 
should do, or people trying to utilize their information or 
their comments on trying to tell us not to do it.
    Mr. Conyers. Would the distinguished gentleman from 
California yield?
    Mr. Lungren. Now, the other side, them saying they really 
don't know what they're talking about in this regard.
    Yes, I would be very happy to.
    Mr. Conyers. I thank the former Attorney General from 
California for yielding.
    Is it your experience, Mr. Lungren, that the death penalty 
is unfair or that the death penalty is fair?
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The time of the gentleman has 
expired.
    Mr. Conyers. Can he respond, Mr. Chairman?
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Without objection the gentleman 
will be given 10 seconds to respond.
    Mr. Lungren. Fair.
    Mr. Conyers. I thank the gentleman.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The time of the gentleman has once 
again expired.
    [Intervening business.]
    Mr. Conyers. Could I ask unanimous consent to put the 
American Civil Liberties Union statement immediately following 
my remarks?
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Without objection, so ordered.
    Mr. Conyers. Thank you.
    [The information follows:]
    <GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
    

    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The question is on the Scott 
Amendment No. 2. Those in favor will say aye.
    Opposed, no.
    The noes appear to have it. The noes have it and the 
amendment is not agreed to.
    Are there further amendments?
    Ms. Sanchez. Mr. Chairman?
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentlewoman from California, 
Ms. Sanchez.
    Ms. Sanchez. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have an amendment 
at the desk.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The clerk will report the amendment 
and the number of the amendment.
    The Clerk. Amendment to the amendment in the nature of a 
substitute to H.R. 1279 offered by Ms. Sanchez of California.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. And what's the number of the 
amendment so that----
    The Clerk. Amendment No. 013.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The clerk will continue reporting 
the amendment.
    The Clerk. At the end of the bill, insert the following new 
section:
    Sec. 2.----
    Ms. Sanchez. Mr. Chairman, may I ask if the amendment be 
considered as read?
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Without objection, so ordered, and 
the gentlewoman is recognized for 5 minutes.
    [The amendment follows:]
      
      

  
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>

      
      

  
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>

      
      

  
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>

      
      

  
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>

      
      

  
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>

      
      

  
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>

      
      

  
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>

    Ms. Sanchez. Thank you, Chairman Sensenbrenner and Ranking 
Member Conyers.
    I am offering the full text of a bill that I introduced 
called the Bullying and Gang Prevention for School Safety and 
Crime Reduction Act of 2005 as an amendment to H.R. 1279, the 
Gang Deterrence and Community Protection Act.
    My piece of legislation addresses our gang epidemic through 
youth intervention, which H.R. 1279 completely neglects. There 
is nothing in this bill that will deter young people from 
joining gangs.
    I agree with the supporters of this bill that gangs are a 
serious issue. However, the problem of gangs cannot be 
addressed simply by imposing death penalties. The problem of 
gangs must be addressed by using a two-pronged approach that 
utilizes both prevention and intervention.
    My amendment would allow schools to fund gang prevention 
programs through these two existing Federal statutes, the Safe 
and Drug Free Schools and Communities Act and the Juvenile 
Accountability Block Grant Program.
    It is well and good that President Bush says that he's 
going to fund gang prevention programs. That is hard to believe 
though when he cuts programs like Weed and Seed, COPS and the 
21st Century After School Programs, which are under way and 
have proven to be effective at deterring gang activity. If this 
Administration means what it says, then programs like Weed and 
Seed, COPS and the 21st Century After School Program need to 
continue to be funded. This is where we need to start to begin 
to address the gang issue. Death or lengthy minimum sentences 
that imprison children for decades are not the answer. Everyone 
agrees, including law enforcement and gang experts, that youth 
intervention and counseling programs keep kids out of gangs. My 
bill is the type of gang prevention proposal that this 
Committee should be marking up.
    Even if the Committee accepted my amendment, the mandatory 
minimum sentences directed at children are so harsh that I 
cannot support H.R. 1279. I urge Members on both sides of the 
aisle to review my bill, to consider joining me as a cosponsor 
of this legislation. I would appreciate an opportunity to work 
with my colleagues on the other side of the aisle on this bill.
    And with that, Chairman, I will withdraw my amendment, 
because I cannot under any circumstances vote in favor of H.R. 
1279.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The amendment is withdrawn.
    Are there further amendments? Gentleman from Virginia, Mr. 
Scott.
    Mr. Scott. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk, 
No. 7.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The clerk will report Scott No. 7.
    The Clerk. Amendment to the amendment in the nature of a 
substitute to H.R. 1279 offered by Mr. Scott of Virginia.
    On page 4, lines 8-18, delete section 101 (1) CRIMINAL 
STREET GANG.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentleman from Virginia is 
recognized for 5 minutes.
    [The amendment follows:]
    <GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
    
    Mr. Scott. Mr. Chairman, there is already a definition in 
the law of a criminal street gang. In the current law has been 
defined as a criminal street gang, which is much better drafted 
than the one we have before us. It is narrowly tailored, 
requires a showing that the purpose of the group is to engage 
in illegal activity. The bill before us actually includes 
misdemeanors which could result in 10-year mandatory minimums. 
It's over expansive and I think unnecessary, and I would hope 
that we would stay with the definition that we have in other 
sections of the law.
    I'll yield back.
    Mr. Forbes. Mr. Chairman, move to strike the last word.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentleman from Virginia is 
recognized for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Forbes. Mr. Chairman, this bill, as we had mentioned 
before, is a comprehensive bill that has been worked out in 
coordination with law enforcement, agents, with prosecutors, 
with folks on the street. One of the things that we look at, as 
my good friend from Virginia indicates, that we've had this 
language around before in the bill. That language has not 
worked and that's why we need this new provision because even 
though the language in 521 has been around for 10 years, there 
have only been 10 prosecutions under it. And we believe that 
the statute that we have gets at the heart of what we need for 
violent criminal gangs. It hits the toughest of the penalties.
    And, Mr. Chairman, I'd just like to point out that on the 
provisions of this bill it is supported by the National Latino 
Peace Officers Association. It is supported by the Newport News 
Police Department, the Chief from there. It is supported by the 
Fraternal Order of Police. It is supported by, in addition to 
that, the National Association of Police Organizations. It is 
also supported by the Major Cities Chief Association, which are 
the 63 members of the major cities and police chiefs across the 
country, and also by the National Troopers Coalition.
    Mr. Chairman, without objection, I'd like to submit those 
records of--those letters of support to the record.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Without objection.
    [The information follows:]
    <GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
    
    Mr. Forbes. I hope we will reject this amendment by my good 
friend from Virginia.
    Mr. Scott. Will the gentleman yield?
    Mr. Forbes. I'll be happy to yield.
    Mr. Scott. I just wanted to comment that I find it 
surprising that the Chief of Police of Newport News would 
suggest that the criminal laws and definitions are 
insufficient. I talked to him about a week, about 2 weeks ago 
at a meeting, and he indicated that he did not believe that 
there was any need to change the criminal law in--to reduce 
gang violence. So I just point out that that comes as a 
complete surprise. And that under this bill misdemeanors can 
result in 10-year mandatory minimums.
    Yield back. Thank the gentleman for yielding.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Gentleman from Virginia.
    Mr. Forbes. Mr. Chairman, I can only say to the gentleman 
that I'm going by the written letter I have from the Chief, and 
to remind the gentleman that this is not just a bill that deals 
with one particular area, but we're also setting up enormous 
resources to State and local law enforcement. We are also 
dealing to bring down these gang networks. This is a definition 
that we believe will suffice to do that. Again, I hope that we 
won't weaken the definition, but will continue it as it's 
drafted in the bill.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Gentleman yield back?
    The question is on the Scott amendment No. 7. Those in 
favor will say aye.
    Opposed, no.
    The noes appear to have it. The noes have it. The amendment 
is not agreed to.
    Are there further amendments? The gentleman from Virginia, 
Mr. Scott.
    Mr. Scott. I have an amendment at the desk, 7A.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The clerk will report amendment 7A.
    The Clerk. Amendment to the amendment in the nature of a 
substitute to H.R. 1279 offered by Mr. Scott of Virginia.
    On page 4, lines line 10, after ``individuals''----
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Without objection the amendment is 
considered as read, and the gentleman from Virginia is 
recognized for 5 minutes.
    [The amendment follows:]
    <GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
    
    Mr. Scott. Mr. Chairman, this amendment too seeks to 
clarify the definition of a criminal street gang. The amendment 
would clarify that the--well, as the bill now reads, any time 
three people get together and commit a crime, virtually any 
crime, they are by definition a criminal street gang. If three 
neighborhood kids get together and get into a fistfight, steal 
a car across State lines, that behavior would be considered a 
gang for purposes of Federal law. This amendment seeks to 
narrow the definition so that only groups whose purpose is to 
commit crimes are defined as gangs.
    Lastly, this broadly drafted language in the bill would 
turn any criminal activity that crosses State lines or affects 
interstate commerce into a Federal offence. A crime is not 
Federal issue. The Federal Government should leave prosecution 
to the States and we should not have three people who commit a 
crime subject to these 10-year mandatory minimums because the 
language is so broad that they were suddenly considered a gang 
for the purposes of these mandatory minimums.
    I yield back.
    Mr. Forbes. Mr. Chairman, move to strike the last word.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Gentleman from Virginia is 
recognized for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Forbes. Mr. Chairman, I know my friend from Virginia 
has read the bill, and if he has read the bill he knows that 
the statement he made that three people can get together and 
commit a crime then qualifies them as a criminal gang is just 
not accurate. Under this bill, we have specifically made clear 
that what you have to have is three or more people in 
association together, but they have to have committed two 
crimes, one of which was a violent criminal act. In addition to 
that, they had to be over two different periods of time, and it 
had to be in furtherance of the gang activity.
    And I want you to look at this chart that I've put up here 
on violent criminal gangs to just make sure because we have 
heard such a blending of apples and oranges because if you're 
outside of that black circle on there, and that's all the 
individuals before they become gang members, this bill doesn't 
seek to reach them. Even when they get inside of that gray area 
right in there and they're gang members, this bill doesn't get 
to reach them either, but once they have moved into the two 
inner circles where they have committed gang crimes--and also 
look at some of the gang crimes that we list in the bill, 
they're witness intimidation, maiming, machete attacks, drug 
trafficking, armed robbery, murder--they are the things that 
we're trying to go and bring down these networks. It's only 
when they've moved into those two inner circles does this bill 
reach out to grab them and to bring down those criminal 
networks.
    So to suggest that three individuals can be together and 
commit one crime that's a misdemeanor crime and makes them a 
violent criminal gang just is not what this bill says. It is 
not what the intention of this bill is.
    And, Mr. Chairman, I hope that we will vote against this 
amendment.
    Mr. Scott. Will the gentleman yield?
    Mr. Forbes. I'll be happy to yield.
    Mr. Scott. Are misdemeanors included in the definition of 
crimes----
    Mr. Forbes. These are crimes--the mandatory minimums apply 
to crimes that you're going to be receiving at least 1 year or 
more under State or Federal law.
    Mr. Scott. I will ask the question again. Do some States 
have 1 year or more for misdemeanors?
    Mr. Forbes. Well, if they do, then this would apply to 
them.
    Mr. Scott. So in Massachusetts where you can get 2 years 
for a misdemeanor, you can commit a misdemeanor and get--be 
subjected to mandatory minimums of 10 years.
    Mr. Forbes. But you would--to be a criminal gang you would 
have had to have had at least one offense which was a violent 
criminal offense in that gang.
    Mr. Scott. A misdemeanor.
    Mr. Forbes. A violent criminal offense.
    Mr. Scott. A violent misdemeanor.
    Mr. Forbes. Well, if it was a violent misdemeanor, then it 
would be a violent misdemeanor. That would be a violent 
criminal gang.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentleman yield back?
    Mr. Forbes. I yield back.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The question is on agreeing to the 
amendment offered by the gentleman from Virginia, Mr. Scott. 
Those in favor will say aye.
    Opposed, no.
    The noes appear to have it, the noes have it. The amendment 
is not agreed to.
    Are there further amendments? Gentleman from Virginia, Mr. 
Scott.
    Mr. Scott. Mr. Chairman, I have another amendment on the 
same section, No. 8.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The clerk will report Scott 
amendment No. 8.
    The Clerk. Amendment to the amendment in the nature of a 
substitute to H.R. 1279 offered by Mr. Scott of Virginia.
    On page 4, line 23, delete the phrase ``crime of violence'' 
and insert ``serious violent felony''.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Without objection the amendment is 
considered as read, and the gentleman from Virginia, Mr. Scott, 
will be recognized for 5 minutes.
    [The amendment follows:]
    <GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
    
    Mr. Scott. Mr. Chairman, this--based on our prior 
discussion, it's obvious that even misdemeanors can be 
considered under the definition of criminal street gangs. This 
would at least require the predicate offense to be felonies. 
This would--the underlying bill would enormously expand what is 
currently considered to be a gang crime under Federal law. It 
would make any crime of violence or virtually any drug offense 
a gang crime, any burglary a gang crime, any misdemeanor--you 
get resisting arrest in the commission of a drug offense, I 
mean that's two offenses right there. One person commits a 
crime. Another person commits another crime, misdemeanors. All 
of a sudden you're a gang and everybody's up for 10 years 
mandatory minimum.
    At least we ought to--if we're going to go after all those 
murderers and maiming and everything else that you name, you 
ought to limit I to felonies.
    I yield back.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Gentleman from Virginia, Mr. 
Forbes.
    Mr. Forbes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Move to strike the 
last word.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentleman is recognized for 5 
minutes.
    Mr. Forbes. Mr. Chairman, again I come back to what this 
bill is designed to do, what the evidence was at our hearing 
from the prosecutors. They don't intend to go after every 
burglary. They don't intend to go after every crime. What this 
bill is designed to do is help them to do the same thing with 
criminal gangs in America that we did with organized crime. And 
that is to have large-scale investigations where we can have 
the networks brought down from these criminal gangs. Many times 
some of the intimidation, some of the threats, some of the 
terror that they put on witnesses and other individuals, is 
busting in doors, coming in robbing those individuals in their 
homes.
    This bill says--and make it very clear--that we do not mind 
having a chilling effect on people joining criminal gangs. You 
know, we do not see any public policy reason why we want 
individuals joining criminal gangs in America. Once they have 
joined those criminal gangs, this bill still doesn't get at 
them. But if they commit a criminal gang crime, then it says 
that we are going to be tough on them and they're going to have 
an option. They can help cooperate with us in bringing down 
those gang leaders and gang network, or they're going to end up 
spending a long time in jail.
    I hope we'll reject this provision and continue with the 
provisions that are in the bill.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentleman yield back?
    The question is on agreeing to Scott amendment No. 8. Those 
in favor will say aye.
    Opposed, no.
    Noes appear to have it. Noes have it and the amendment is 
not agreed to.
    Are there further amendments? Gentleman from Virginia, Mr. 
Scott.
    Mr. Scott. Amendment No. 9.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The clerk will report Scott 
amendment No. 9.
    The Clerk. Amendment to the amendment in the nature of a 
substitute to H.R. 1279 offered by Mr. Scott of Virginia.
    On page 19, line 5-6 strike ``an offense punishable by 
imprisonment for more than 1 year'' and insert on line 5----
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Without objection the amendment is 
considered as read and the gentleman from Virginia is 
recognized for 5 minutes.
    [The amendment follows:]
    <GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
    
    Mr. Scott. Mr. Chairman, section 112 of the legislation on 
page 19 would change the definition of ``crime of violence'' to 
include misdemeanors in some States and Federal drug offenses. 
Some States punish misdemeanors, as I indicated, for more than 
1 year, and would convert those misdemeanors into crimes of 
violence that--where I think we're aiming at felonies.
    Both Alabama and Massachusetts, for example, a relatively 
minor offense that could involve the risk of force, such as a 
simple assault or resisting arrest are both classified as 
misdemeanors. In Alabama a misdemeanor is punishable by no more 
than 1 year. In Massachusetts misdemeanors are punishable by up 
to 2\1/2\ years. So if you committed the same offense in 
Massachusetts, you're under section 112 as a crime of violence. 
If you commit it in Alabama, it's not considered under section 
112 a crime of violence. I mean this is an important 
distinction because if you get busted for one of these you're 
looking at 10-year mandatory minimums, and you're converting 
what are misdemeanors into 10-year mandatory minimums.
    And I would hope that we would be consistent and use the 
term ``felony'' or ``misdemeanor'' so that we would track what 
the States actually have designated as the important 
differences in seriousness.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentleman from Virginia, Mr. 
Forbes.
    Mr. Forbes. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentleman is recognized for 5 
minutes.
    Mr. Forbes. Mr. Chairman, it doesn't really much matter on 
the nomenclature that one State may use versus another. I think 
it's important that we have uniformity here, and what we're 
saying is if we have a violent criminal act that's punishable 
by more than a year in jail--but again, one of the things that 
my friend from Virginia continues to leave out when he's 
talking about this, it has to be in furtherance of the gang 
activity. And if they are committing a violent criminal act in 
furtherance of a criminal gang activity, then I don't have very 
much sympathy with that, and I think this bill comes down hard 
and it comes down tough on them, but it's what we're going to 
have to have if we're going to break down these criminal gang 
networks, and I hope we'll reject this amendment and continue 
with the bill as drafted.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The question is on agreeing to 
Scott amendment No. 9. Those in favor will say aye.
    Opposed, no.
    The noes appear to have it. The noes have it. The amendment 
is not agreed to.
    Are there further amendments? The gentleman from Virginia, 
Mr. Scott.
    Mr. Scott. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk, 
No. 4.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The clerk will report Scott 
amendment No. 4.
    The Clerk. Amendment to the amendment in the nature of a 
substitute to H.R. 1279 offered by Mr. Scott of Virginia.
    Starting on page 17, line 22, through page 18 line 10----
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Without objection, the amendment is 
considered as read and the gentleman from Virginia will be 
recognized for 5 minutes.
    [The amendment follows:]
    <GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
    
    Mr. Scott. Mr. Chairman, this is a simple venue question of 
where you can bring a capital offense. There is no reason to 
amend the current law, and certainly good reasons not to. Under 
the bill a prosecutor could bring a capital case in a district 
that only had the most remote connection to the crime. If a 
murder occurred in Massachusetts with a gun stolen from 
Mississippi, the homicide case could be prosecuted under the 
bill in Mississippi. This allows prosecutors to forum shop and 
pick the location where they think they're most likely to 
obtain a death sentence. This would only exacerbate the racial 
and geographical disparities that already exist in the Federal 
death penalty, and I would hope we wouldn't use this bill to 
change the law in venue on death penalty cases.
    Yield back.
    Mr. Forbes. Mr. Chairman?
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentleman from Virginia, Mr. 
Forbes.
    Mr. Forbes. Move to strike the last word.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentleman's recognized for 5 
minutes.
    Mr. Forbes. Mr. Chairman, I hope that we'll defeat this 
provision because one of the most important things we're trying 
to do with this bill is not simply punish the individual who 
commits the crime at the lower-tier level. What we're trying to 
do is reach up and pull out the gang leaders.
    As our witnesses have testified, as we have tried to make 
clear, these gang leaders know how to work the system. They 
know how to stay away from the States where they're committing 
the crimes and send other people there to do them. One of the 
things that we think is important is that the prosecutors have 
the discretion to be able to bring these cases where they can 
compile them in large cases and bring down the networks at one 
time. We think to change the venue provision would limit that 
ability. I hope we'll reject this amendment, and I yield back.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The question is on agreeing to 
Scott amendment No. 4. Those in favor will say aye.
    Opposed, no.
    The noes appear to have it. The noes have it. The amendment 
is not agreed to.
    Are there further amendments?
    Mr. Scott. Mr. Chairman?
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Gentleman from Virginia, Mr. Scott.
    Mr. Scott. I move to strike the last word.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentleman is recognized for 5 
minutes.
    Mr. Scott. Mr. Chairman, reference was made to the Chief of 
Police of the city of Newport News, and I indicated that I was 
surprised to hear that the Chief of Police was supporting 
changes in the criminal statutes because I had talked to him 
previously.
    I have a copy of the letter now that was provided for the 
record, and the letter just indicates that the city of Newport 
News would like to get some money to help prosecute crimes. It 
doesn't say anything about changing the substantive law.
    I think all police departments would like more money. That 
certainly doesn't come as a surprise, but I don't think the 
letter should be interpreted as supporting any of the 
underlying substantive changes in criminal law.
    Mr. Forbes. Mr. Chairman?
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Does the gentleman yield back?
    Mr. Scott. I yield back.
    Mr. Forbes. Move to strike the last word.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentleman from Virginia is 
recognized for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Forbes. Mr. Chairman, my statement wasn't that the 
police chief wanted to change underlying law. What my statement 
was, that he supported this bill and that he indicated in his 
letter the huge growing gang problem that they had in the city 
of Newport News.
    I have put the--all of the letters of endorsement and 
support in the record, and I think the letters will speak for 
themselves, and I yield back.
    Mr. Scott. Would the gentleman yield?
    Mr. Forbes. I'll be glad to yield.
    Mr. Scott. Where in the letter does he support the bill? I 
mean the only thing he says is, should the bill pass he hopes 
to get a share of the funds.
    Mr. Forbes. Well, he writes in here the city of Newport 
News has a growing gang problem. He identifies the gang 
problem. He talks about the interest that he has in this bill, 
the need that they have for immediate terms of help, and that 
he had read with interest in the bill that I was introducing in 
Congress, and, you know, again, you can read the letter for 
what it's worth. And, you know, I'm not relying on the police 
chief for support or not support of this bill. I'm simply 
putting his letter in the record. It can speak for itself.
    But I can tell you that I have numerous letters here from 
large organizations across the country that they state 
specifically that they support every provision in the bill, and 
that includes not just one police chief, but it includes, as I 
mentioned, major cities, 63 of the major cities across the 
country, their police chief. It includes the Fraternal Order of 
Police. It includes the National Association of Police 
Organizations. It includes the National Latino Police Officers 
Association, and they even write that they're going to fight to 
get the bill through, and look forward to fighting for it.
    So you can draw whatever conclusions you want about an 
individual person, but I simply said that they were supportive 
of the bill. If you don't believe the letter's supportive of 
the bill, draw whatever interpretation you want.
    Mr. Scott. I'm just reading the bill.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Gentleman from Virginia yield back?
    Mr. Forbes. Mr. Chairman, just the last line, and this 
could be open. ``Should I be able to assist you in any manner 
in moving this important piece of legislation forward, please 
contact me.'' Now maybe that's an indication that he doesn't 
support it, but normally says, can I assist you in moving a 
piece of legislation forward, I interpret that to mean that 
they're supportive of the legislation, but perhaps your 
interpretation of that phraseology is different, and, Mr. 
Chairman, I yield back.
    Ms. Jackson Lee. Mr. Chairman?
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Are there further amendments? 
Gentlewoman from Texas, Ms. Jackson Lee.
    Ms. Jackson Lee. I rise to strike the last word.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentlewoman is recognized for 5 
minutes.
    Ms. Jackson Lee. I thank the distinguished Chairman very 
much. Let me indicate that I offer my support for an amendment 
that was offered by Mr. Scott, dealing with the definition, Mr. 
Chairman, of criminal activity for gangs.
    I am concerned generally about the thrust of this 
legislation, because as I looked at the opening, or the 
explanation of the majority's memorandum, it focuses of course 
on some concerns expressed by its author in the State of 
Virginia.
    My concern about this legislation is whether or not there 
is sufficient documentation that--it talks about the increase 
of gang activity over the last decade to 5 years, when we 
realize that gang activity has actually decreased. There is 
some concern about a gang by the name of MS-13, which I don't 
think should be the defining reason for passing this 
legislation to label all youngsters who have gone off, if you 
will, the beaten track.
    One of the concerns I have is that where is the outreach 
and education dealing with youngsters who are engaged in gang 
activities for the very reasons we've heard over the decades, 
and that is to find friendship, alliances, comfort, guidance, 
where there is none.
    And so we're taking a definition to suggest that three or 
four youngsters standing on a street corner, which is something 
that happens frequently in African-American neighborhoods and 
Hispanic neighborhoods, now ill be indicted as gang proponents, 
no alternative to their education, no other kind of support 
system in the community but locking them up.
    Prosecuting 16- and 17-year-old who may be involved in a 
large order of individuals who may not actually have 
perpetrated the violent crime, now they will be subject to 
indictment and incarceration.
    If my colleagues would look at the Nation's prison system, 
and as well look at the Federal prison system, they will find 
that there are throngs of individuals languishing in prisons 
who need not be there, obviously on the basis of, in the 
Federal system, drug crimes, in the State system, because 
they've had the three strikes you're out. There's a great 
movement to begin to release individuals who are nonviolent 
perpetrators. I know that this speaks to violence, but what it 
does is a broad brush with no solutions and no interest in 
rehabilitating young people who have their lives in front of 
them.
    We're going to make a gang problem where there is none. 
Isolated responses to crises is important, but a broad-based 
approach to this whole idea that we have gangs taking over 
America I think is clearly misdirected. And I'd like my 
colleagues to show me the major statistics. Of course we're 
going to have a bunch of letters from law enforcement. Law 
enforcement are friends to all of us, and all of us have 
supported increased resources, better laws. Whenever you 
suggest to them that they'll have another tool allegedly to be 
able to lock people up, it's something they might be interested 
in, but that law enforcement were also interested in the Cops 
on the Beat Program that we extinguished, this Administration, 
and eliminated the resources for it.
    Law enforcement is also interested in alternative programs 
for juveniles. The DARE programs, where our cities are being 
forced to eliminate the DARE program, where one of the officers 
approached me on the street and said, ``We're taking the DARE 
officers and sitting them in a jailhouse so that we don't have 
DARE officers interacting with our kids in our community 
because somebody says that program does not work.''
    So I think that what we're doing here is padding laws and 
making enhanced criminal activity out of what may be 
misdirected juveniles who have no other resources, have no 
parks that are open, have no schools that understand them and 
are able to educate them, and certainly have no alternative 
programs dealing with juveniles in their community.
    We made fun of the midnight basketball, which worked in 
some communities where kids were out in the street late into 
the night. I know it because I had my parks open as a member of 
the Houston City Council and I had it opened with people in 
there and mentors dealing with these youngsters.
    So we may get some degree of excitement, Mr. Chairman, my 
colleague, out of this legislation, but I can assure you you're 
going to be making criminals where there are not, you're not 
going to be solving the overall violent gang program because 
it's not narrowly focused. You're just going to round up 3 and 
4 people on the street corner and tell them they're bad guys 
and bad girls. I'd much prefer us invest our monies in helping 
these young people find their dream, get out of their 
predicament, get away from selling drugs because that's the 
only alternative.
    That's not what we're doing here today. All we're doing is 
putting a Bandaid on a problem or even making a problem worse, 
and I am sorry that we're doing so.
    I thank the gentleman and I yield back.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The time of the gentlewoman has 
expired. Are there further amendments?
    Mr. Scott. Mr. Chairman?
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Gentleman from Virginia, Mr. Scott.
    Mr. Scott. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk, 
No. 3.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The Clerk will report Scott 
amendment No. 3.
    The Clerk. Amendment to the amendment in the nature of a 
substitute to H.R. 1279 offered by Mr. Scott of Virginia.
    On page 2, line 8 insert the word ``intention'' before 
death.
    On page----
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Without objection the amendment is 
considered as read. The gentleman from Virginia, Mr. Scott, is 
recognized for 5 minutes.
    [The amendment follows:]
    <GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
    
    Mr. Scott. Mr. Chairman, the bill provides for mandatory 
death or life imprisonment for a gang crime if a gang crime 
results in the death of any person. That includes accidents.
    Now, to get the death penalty you have to have at least 
created a grave risk of death with reckless disregard for human 
life, but this provides for death or life imprisonment. If 
you--if somebody in the gang--I mean you can have an--go 
through a--inadvertently go through a stop sign, all of a 
sudden it's a gang crime. If there's an underlying gang crime 
and it results in death--it could have been an accident, could 
have been anything--I would hope that we're not mandating life 
in prison for what could under ordinary circumstances without 
this bill be an accident.
    I think it violates common sense to have that kind of 
mandatory minimum for an accident, and that's why I put--want 
to put ``intentional'' before ``death,'' and I yield back.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentleman from Virginia, Mr. 
Forbes.
    Mr. Forbes. Mr. Chairman, move to strike the last word.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentleman is recognized for 5 
minutes.
    Mr. Forbes. Mr. Chairman, I hope that we will reject this 
amendment. I think 18 U.S.C clearly covers the situations where 
the death penalty would be applied, and actually covers the 
state of mind that's involved in there. We don't need to do any 
additional definitions or change that. It's already covered and 
I hope we'll reject this.
    Mr. Scott. Would the gentleman yield?
    Mr. Forbes. I'll be happy to yield.
    Mr. Scott. That's imposition of death. What about life?
    Mr. Forbes. Well, in the situation with life they have that 
ability to do it if it results in death, and I think if----
    Mr. Scott. Accident.
    Mr. Forbes. Well, I don't think it would be. I think they 
would have to have an intention to have done the criminal act 
that they did and have a criminal act that ended up resulting 
in death. It's not a strict liability provision.
    Mr. Scott. Well, actually, if the gentleman would yield, 
actually it is. Whoever commits, conspires, conspires, 
threatens, or attempt to commit a gang crime which could be a 
misdemeanor shall in addition to being subject to a fine, if 
the gang crime results in the death.
    Mr. Forbes. That's right.
    Mr. Scott. It could be an accident.
    Mr. Forbes. He would have had the intention of doing the 
criminal act. He couldn't have accidentally done the criminal 
act.
    Mr. Scott. You could be escaping from an armed robbery and 
go through a stop sign.
    Mr. Forbes. And he ended up killing someone.
    Mr. Scott. Right, and inadvertently, accidentally killed 
somebody.
    Mr. Forbes. I mean that's not my definition of an accident. 
I mean, again, once I say that if he's, if he's in that inner 
circle and he commits one of those crimes, he is at that 
particular point in time, if he kills somebody, you look at the 
victim and tell him----
    Mr. Scott. Accident.
    Mr. Forbes. I just disagree that it's an accident.
    Mr. Scott. Well, if it is--if the gentleman yield--if it is 
an accident, unintentional, is life imprisonment for an 
accident----
    Mr. Forbes. He had the intention of committing the criminal 
act when he was doing it, and if that results in death, I think 
that at this particular point in time he should have a 
mandatory provision to either have life or death. We just 
disagree.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Gentleman yield back?
    Mr. Forbes. Yield back.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The question is on agreeing to the 
Scott amendment. Those in favor will say aye.
    Opposed, no.
    The noes appear to have it. The noes have it. The amendment 
is not agreed to.
    Are there further amendments?
    If there are no further amendments, a reporting quorum is 
present. The question is on agreeing to the amendment in the 
nature of a substitute offerer by the gentleman from Virginia, 
Mr. Forbes. Those in favor will say aye.
    Ms. Jackson Lee. Mr. Chairman?
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Those opposed, no.
    The ayes appear to have it. The ayes have it, and the 
amendment in the nature----
    Ms. Jackson Lee. Recorded vote.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. A recorded vote is requested on the 
Forbes amendment in the nature of a substitute. Those in favor 
of the Forbes amendment will as your names are called answer 
aye, those opposed no, and the clerk will call the roll.
    The Clerk. Mr. Hyde?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Coble?
    Mr. Coble. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Coble, aye. Mr. Smith?
    Mr. Smith of Texas. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Smith, aye. Mr. Gallegly?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Goodlatte?
    Mr. Goodlatte. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Goodlatte, aye. Mr. Chabot?
    Mr. Chabot. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Chabot, aye. Mr. Lungren?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Jenkins?
    Mr. Jenkins. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Jenkins, aye. Mr. Cannon?
    Mr. Cannon. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Cannon, aye. Mr. Bachus?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Inglis?
    Mr. Inglis. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Inglis, no. Mr. Hostettler?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Green?
    Mr. Green. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Green, aye. Mr. Keller?
    Mr. Keller. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Keller, aye. Mr. Issa?
    Mr. Issa. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Issa, aye. Mr. Flake?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Pence?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Forbes?
    Mr. Forbes. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Forbes, aye. Mr. King?
    Mr. King. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. King, aye. Mr. Feeney?
    Mr. Feeney. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Feeney, aye. Mr. Franks?
    Mr. Franks. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Franks, aye. Mr. Gohmert?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Conyers?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Berman?
    Mr. Berman. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Berman, no. Mr. Boucher?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Nadler?
    Mr. Nadler. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Nadler, no. Mr. Scott?
    Mr. Scott. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Scott, no. Mr. Watt?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Ms. Lofgren?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Ms. Jackson Lee?
    Ms. Jackson Lee. No.
    The Clerk. Ms. Jackson Lee, no. Ms. Waters?
    Ms. Waters. No.
    The Clerk. Ms. Waters, no. Mr. Meehan?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Delahunt?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Wexler?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Weiner?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Schiff?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Ms. Sanchez?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Smith?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Van Hollen?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Chairman?
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Chairman, aye.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Members who wish to cast or change 
their votes? Gentleman from Texas, Mr. Gohmert?
    Mr. Gohmert. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Gohmert, aye.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Further Members who wish to cast or 
change their votes? Gentleman from Florida, Mr. Wexler?
    Mr. Wexler. No, please.
    The Clerk. Mr. Wexler, no.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Gentleman from Virginia--excuse 
me--gentleman from Michigan, Mr. Conyers?
    Mr. Conyers. Mr. Chairman, no.
    The Clerk. Mr. Conyers, no.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Gentlewoman from California, Ms. 
Sanchez?
    Ms. Sanchez. No.
    The Clerk. Ms. Sanchez, no.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Gentleman from Maryland, Mr. Van 
Hollen?
    Mr. Van Hollen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Van Hollen, no.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Further Members who wish to cast or 
change their vote? If not, the clerk will report.
    The Clerk. Mr. Chairman, there are 15 ayes and 10 noes.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. And the amendment in the nature of 
a substitute is agreed to. A reporting quorum is present.
    Ms. Waters. Mr. Chairman?
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. For what purpose does the 
gentlewoman from California seek recognition?
    Ms. Waters. I have an amendment.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Once an amendment in the nature of 
a substitute is adopted no further amendments are in order.
    Ms. Waters. Thank you.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. A reporting quorum is present.
    Ms. Waters. Mr. Chairman?
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentlewoman from California.
    Ms. Waters. I would ask unanimous consent that my--at least 
one of my three amendments be considered despite the fact that 
you have an amendment in the nature of a substitute.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Is there objection to the unanimous 
consent request of the gentlewoman from California, Ms. Water?
    Mr. Goodlatte. I object, Mr. Chairman.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Objection is heard.
    A reporting quorum is still present. The question occurs on 
the motion to report the bill H.R. 1279 favorably as amended. 
All those in favor will say aye.
    Opposed, no.
    The ayes appear to have it. The ayes have it and the bill 
is reported favorably as amended. Without objection the bill 
will be reported----
    Mr. Scott. Mr. Chairman, recorded vote on the----
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. A recorded vote is requested on the 
motion to report the bill favorably. Those in favor will, as 
your names are called, answer aye, those opposed no, and the 
clerk will call the roll.
    The Clerk. Mr. Hyde?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Coble?
    Mr. Coble. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Coble, aye. Mr. Smith?
    Mr. Smith of Texas. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Smith, aye. Mr. Gallegly?
    Mr. Gallegly. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Gallegly, aye. Mr. Goodlatte?
    Mr. Goodlatte. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Goodlatte, aye. Mr. Chabot?
    Mr. Chabot. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Chabot, aye. Mr. Lungren?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Jenkins?
    Mr. Jenkins. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Jenkins, aye. Mr. Cannon?
    Mr. Cannon. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Cannon, aye. Mr. Bachus?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Inglis?
    Mr. Inglis. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Inglis, no. Mr. Hostettler?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Green?
    Mr. Green. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Green, aye. Mr. Keller?
    Mr. Keller. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Keller, aye. Mr. Issa?
    Mr. Issa. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Issa, aye. Mr. Flake?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Pence?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Forbes?
    Mr. Forbes. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Forbes, aye. Mr. King?
    Mr. King. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. King, aye. Mr. Feeney?
    Mr. Feeney. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Feeney, aye. Mr. Franks?
    Mr. Franks. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Franks, aye. Mr. Gohmert?
    Mr. Gohmert. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Gohmert, aye. Mr. Conyers?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Berman?
    Mr. Berman. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Berman, no. Mr. Boucher?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Nadler?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Scott?
    Mr. Scott. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Scott, no. Mr. Watt?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Ms. Lofgren?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Ms. Jackson Lee?
    Ms. Jackson Lee. No.
    The Clerk. Ms. Jackson Lee, no. Ms. Waters?
    Ms. Waters. No.
    The Clerk. Ms. Waters, no. Mr. Meehan?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Delahunt?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Wexler?
    Mr. Wexler. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Wexler, no. Mr. Weiner?
    Mr. Weiner. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Weiner, no. Mr. Schiff?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Ms. Sanchez?
    Ms. Sanchez. No.
    The Clerk. Ms. Sanchez, no. Mr. Smith?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Van Hollen?
    Mr. Van Hollen. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Van Hollen, no. Mr. Chairman?
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Chairman, aye.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Further Members who wish to cast or 
change their votes? Gentleman from New York, Mr. Nadler?
    Mr. Nadler. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Nadler, no.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Gentleman from Michigan, Mr. 
Conyers?
    Mr. Conyers. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Conyers, no.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Further Members who wish to cast or 
change their vote? If not, the clerk will report.
    The Clerk. Mr. Chairman, there are 16 ayes and 11 noes.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. And the motion to report the bill 
favorably as amended is agreed to. Without objection the bill 
will be reported favorably to the House in the form of a single 
amendment in the nature of a substitute, incorporating the 
amendments adopted.
    Without objection the staff is directed to make technical 
and conforming changes, and all Members will be given 2 days as 
provided by the House rules in which to submit additional 
dissenting supplemental or minority views.
    [Intervening business.]
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The Committee stands adjourned.
    [Whereupon, at 12:23 p.m., the Committee was adjourned.]

                            DISSENTING VIEWS

    We strongly dissent from H.R. 1279. The legislation would 
federalize a host of crimes currently and competently handled 
by the states and the District of Columbia; penalize even non-
violent drug dealing and some misdemeanors as crimes of 
violence; expand without reason the definition of criminal 
street gang; unwisely leave to the sole discretion of the 
government the unreviewable decision to try juveniles as 
adults; impose unduly harsh and discriminatory mandatory 
minimum sentences; and expand the use of the federal death 
penalty to new offenses. The legislation is unnecessary as 
federal prosecutors are already armed with the Continuing 
Criminal enterprise (``CCE'') and Racketeer Influenced and 
Corrupt Organizations Act (``RICO'') statutes to combat gang 
crimes. The legislation also may be unconstitutional. Recent 
Supreme Court opinions strongly suggest that this legislation 
would exceed Congress's authority under the Commerce Clause.
    H.R. 1279, the ``Gang Deterrence and Community Protection 
Act of 2005'' (Gang Deterrence Act'') has a deceptive title 
since its primary purpose is to punish more young people as 
adults to the extent possible.\1\ The bill would largely 
federalize the prosecution of criminal street gang members and 
facilitate the federal prosecution of juvenile members. 
Research shows young people who are prosecuted as adults are 
more likely to commit a greater number of crimes upon release 
than youth who go to the juvenile justice system. Therefore 
locking young people up in adult prisons actually compromises 
public safety. Moreover, research demonstrates that increasing 
prison terms does not reduce youth violence. H.R. 1279 also 
authorizes substantial appropriations for law enforcement teams 
and technology, while providing nothing in the way of jobs or 
education for at-risk youth.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ The Supreme Court recently struck down the death penalty for 
juveniles in Roper v. Simmons, 125 S. Ct. 1183 (2005).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                       DESCRIPTION OF LEGISLATION

    H.R. 1279 has several substantive provisions. Title I of 
the bill creates new offenses, broadens existing ones, 
increases existing maximum penalties, imposes twenty-four new 
mandatory minimum sentences, and authorizes the death penalty 
for a number of offenses. Section 101 of Title I creates new 
penalties with mandatory minimum sentences for committing gang 
crimes. The term ``gang crime'' is defined in the bill to 
include violent and nonviolent State and Federal crimes, 
including what are misdemeanors in some states.\2\ The number 
and nature of ``gang crimes'' would be vastly expanded by 
Section 112, which would include garden variety state offenses, 
like resisting arrest, into the definition of ``crime of 
violence.'' \3\ The new penalties, with mandatory minimum 
sentences and death penalties, for committing a gang crime 
depends on the seriousness of the offense as follows: (a) death 
or life imprisonment for any crime resulting in death; (b) a 
mandatory minimum of 30 years to life for kidnaping, aggravated 
sexual abuse or maiming; (c) a mandatory minimum of 20 years to 
life for assault resulting in serious bodily injury; or (d) a 
mandatory minimum of 10 years to life in any other case.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \2\ A ``gang crime'' is defined to mean any federal or state crime 
punishable by more than 1 year in prison and includes among others: 
crime of violence, obstruction of justice, drug trafficking, money 
laundering, identification fraud, and car and property theft.
    \3\ The term ``crime of violence'' appears in Title 18 over 100 
times. As far as we are aware, the sponsors of this legislation have 
not evaluated the effects this change in definition would have beyond 
this legislation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The legislation has numerous other provisions that enhance 
existing criminal penalties and apply them to existing offenses 
and much less serious conduct.
    
 Section 102 creates new mandatory minimums for the 
crime of interstate and foreign travel or transportation in aid 
of racketeering. Section 102 creates a new mandatory minimum of 
5 years and increases the maximum sentence from 5 to 20 years 
for intending to distribute the proceeds of or to commit 
unlawful activity. It also creates a new mandatory minimum of 
10 years for the intent to commit a crime of violence in 
furtherance of unlawful activity and increases the maximum from 
20 to 30 years. Finally, the Section creates a new death 
penalty if death occurs (original life imprisonment).
    
 Section 103 increases the maximum for: carjacking 
from 15 to 20 years and creates a new mandatory minimum of 10 
years; illegal gun transfers to drug traffickers or violent 
criminals from 10 to 20 years and creates a new mandatory 
minimum of 5 years; conspiracy to defraud the United States 
from 5 to 20 years.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \4\ Section 103 would eliminate from the carjacking statute, 18 
U.S.C. Sec. 2119, the state of mind element, ``intent to cause death or 
serious bodily harm'' and would broaden the offense described in 18 
U.S.C. Sec. 924(h), to include transfers of firearms knowing that they 
will be ``possessed'' in furtherance of a ``crime of violence'' or drug 
trafficking crime.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    
 Section 104 provides for increased penalties for 
use of interstate commerce facilities in the commission of 
murder-for-hire and ``other felony crimes of violence.'' 
Specifically, Section 104 creates the following new penalties 
with new mandatory minimums and death penalties for the crime: 
death or life in prison if the crime of violence results in 
death; 30 to life for kidnaping, aggravated sexual abuse, or 
maiming; 20 to life for assault with serious bodily injury; and 
10 to life for all other cases.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \5\ Section 104 would amend 18 U.S.C. 1958, which currently 
prohibits travel or use of the mails or other interstate facility with 
intent that a murder be committed, by adding ``with intent that [any] 
other crime of violence'' be committed. Under Section 112, this would 
include non-violent drug offenses, and state offenses that are 
misdemeanors under the law of some states.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    
 Section 105 provides for the following increased 
penalties for violent crimes in aid of racketeering activity: 
30 to life for kidnaping, aggravated sexual abuse, or maiming 
(original 30 max for maiming; life for kidnaping); 20 to life 
for assault with serious bodily injury (original 20 max); 10 to 
life for all other crimes.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \6\ Section 105 would fundamentally change the nature of the 
offense under 18 U.S.C. 1959 to prohibit less serious conduct, while 
changing the penalty structure to one of consecutive mandatory minimum 
sentences. It would prohibit less serious conduct in at least three 
ways. First, it replaces a ``crime of violence against any individual'' 
with the revised definition of ``crime of violence,'' which includes 
state misdemeanors and minor federal felonies that merely involve a 
substantial risk that force may be used against the person or property 
of another, and entirely non-violent drug crimes. Second, it replaces 
the requirement that the underlying offense be in ``consideration for 
the receipt [or] promise or agreement to pay, anything of pecuniary 
value from an enterprise engaged in racketeering activity'' with a 
requirement that the underlying offense be merely ``to further the 
activities of the enterprise.'' Third, it subjects to the death penalty 
any offense that ``results in death,'' rather than only ``murder.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    
 Section 114 increases the penalties including 
mandatory minimums for the use or discharge of a firearm in a 
crime of violence or drug trafficking crime.\7\ The Section 
increases the existing mandatory minimum consecutive penalty 
for possession from 5 to 7 years. In addition, Section 114 
increases the penalty for discharging from 10 to 15 years and 
creates a new penalty for wounding, injuring, or maiming at 20 
years.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \7\ Section 114 amends subsection A of Section 924(c)(1)(A) of 
title 18 to include conspiracy; if someone conspires to commit a crime 
of violence or drug trafficking crime and a firearm is involved, the 
defendant will receive a mandatory consecutive sentence each time the 
weapon is used, carried, or possessed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In addition to adding and enhancing penalties for existing 
and less serious conduct, H.R. 1279 creates the following new 
offenses:
    
 Section 106 creates a new criminal offense for 
violent acts committed during and in relation to a drug 
trafficking crime, with the following penalties: death penalty 
or life for the death of any person; 30 to life for kidnaping, 
aggravated sexual abuse, or maiming; 20 to life for assault 
with serious bodily injury; and 10 to life for all other 
cases.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \8\ More specifically, Section 106 would add to the Controlled 
Substances Act a new offense, prohibiting the commission, conspiracy or 
attempt to commit a ``crime of violence during and in relation to a 
drug trafficking crime.'' Under the new definition of ``crime of 
violence,'' this would include offenses that are misdemeanors under the 
law of some states and non-violent drug trafficking crimes--during and 
in relation to a drug trafficking crime.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    
 Section 107 creates a new criminal offense 
involving interstate or foreign commerce or the mail with the 
intent that 2 or more murders be committed, with the following 
penalties: death penalty or life if a death occurs; 20 to life 
for assault with serious bodily injury; and 10 to life for all 
other cases.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \9\ Section 107 would create a new federal crime without a criminal 
act. Unlike the Travel Act as currently written, which requires travel 
or use of the mails or other facility in interstate or foreign commerce 
and one of several inherently illegal acts, this statute merely 
prohibits travel or use of the mails or other facility in interstate or 
foreign commerce ``with intent that 2 or more intentional homicides be 
committed.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Section 110 would expand venue in capital cases so as to 
allow prosecutors to forum shop among jurisdictions where any 
part of the crime was committed. That is, Section 110 amends 
jurisdiction of cases punishable by death to include not only 
the district where the offense was committed, but any district 
involved in the entire timeline of the offense, from conception 
to completion.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \10\ The Section creates a new subsection allowing jurisdiction to 
fall in a district where related conduct occurred if the offense 
affects interstate or foreign commerce, or involves the importation of 
a person or object into the U.S.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    A section of particular significance in H.R. 1279 is 
Section 115. This section authorizes the Attorney General for 
the first time to charge as an adult in federal court a 
juvenile who is 16 or older and commits a crime of 
violence.\11\ This Section prohibits judicial review of the 
Attorney General's decision to transfer juveniles.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \11\ Any promotion of this approach by the Department of Justice 
(DOJ) makes no sense and has no credible foundation in light of the 
advice and counsel DOJ provides to state and local authorities on how 
to address youth violence, including youth gang violence. The DOJ 
website and the annual report for the Office of Justice Programs, 
promotes just the opposite approaches, recommending the appropriate 
evidence based crime prevention and crime response approaches for youth 
from age 2 to age 22, including responses to serious violent crimes. 
Nowhere in the DOJ protocols is there a call for mandatory minimum 
sentences or treating juveniles as adults as an evidenced-based 
response.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Title II authorizes various appropriations. Section 201 of 
the bill requires the Attorney General, after consultation with 
the Governors of appropriate states, to designate certain 
locations as ``high intensity interstate gang activity areas,'' 
and provides assistance in the form of criminal street gang 
enforcement teams consisting of numerous federal agencies, and 
state and local law enforcement authorities to investigate and 
prosecute criminal street gangs in each high intensity 
interstate gang activity area. It authorizes $5,750,000 for 
each fiscal year from 2006 through 2010 for this purpose. 
Section 202 authorizes $20,000,000 for each fiscal year from 
2006 through 2010 for independent state and local efforts.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \12\ No funds would be authorized for education, job training, or 
drug treatment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Among the organizations that have opposed, or have 
expressed serious concerns with H.R. 1279 are:
    (1) Judicial Conference of the United States; \13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \13\ See Letter from Leonidas Ralph Mecham, Secretary, Judicial 
Conference of the United States to the Honorable Howard Coble, dated 
April 1, 2005.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    (2) Child advocacy groups including: Alliance for Children 
and Families; American Academy of Child & Adolescent 
Psychiatry; Campaign 4 Youth Justice; Child Welfare League of 
America; Children and Adults with Attention-Deficit/
Hyperactivity Disorder (CHADD); Children's Defense Fund; 
Coalition for Juvenile Justice; Council of Juvenile 
Correctional Administrators; Federation of Families for 
Children's Mental Health Girls Incorporated; Juvenile Law 
Center; National Association of School Psychologists; National 
Collaboration for Youth; National Juvenile Defender Center; 
National Network for Youth; Society for Research in Child 
Development; and the Youth Law Center; \14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \14\ See Letter addressed to Chairman Sensenbrenner and 
Representative Conyers dated April 8, 2005.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    (3) Criminal justice groups including: American Civil 
Liberties Union; American Correctional Association; Federal 
Public Defender; and the National Association of Criminal 
Defense Lawyers; \15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \15\ See Letter to Representatives Coble and Scott dated April 4, 
2005; see also Letter addressed to Chairman Sensenbrenner and 
Representative Conyers dated April 8, 2005; Letter from Thomas W. 
Hiller II, Federal Public Defender to Chairman Sensenbrenner and 
Representative Conyers dated April 21, 2005.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    (4) Industry and business-oriented groups including: 
Chamber of Commerce of the United States, the National 
Federation of Independent Business, and Business Civil 
Liberties, Inc; \16\ and
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \16\ See Letter from Business Civil Liberties, Inc., Chamber of 
Commerce of the United States and National Federation of Independent 
Business to Representatives Coble and Scott dated April 5, 2005.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    (5) Religious, human rights and civil rights organizations 
including: Church Women United; Democracy Project; Justice 
Policy Institute; Legal Action Center; Mennonite Central 
Committee; Catholic Charities USA; National Alliance for the 
Mentally ill (NAMI); National Council of La Raza; National 
H.I.R.E. Network; National Mental Health Association; 
Physicians for Human Rights; Presbyterian Church (USA) 
Washington Office; School Social Work Association of America; 
United Church Of Christ; Volunteers of America; and Women of 
Reform Judaism.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \17\ See Letter to Representatives Coble and Scott dated April 4, 
2005; see also Letter addressed to Chairman Sensenbrenner and 
Representative Conyers dated April 8, 2005.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    For these and the following reasons, we dissent from H.R. 
1279.

I. The Transfer Provision Endangers Youth and Public Safety

    Permitting the government unreviewable discretion to 
transfer juveniles to be tried as adults will not decrease 
crime among youth. Study after study have shown that such 
measures merely increase prison rape and assaults against 
youngsters incarcerated in adult prisons, disproportionately 
affect minority youth, and increase recidivism rates of 
released youthful offenders.
    First, research conclusively demonstrates that prosecuting 
young people as adults does not reduce youth crime; it in fact 
increases crime, including violent crime.\18\ Numerous studies 
including those conducted by the Coalition for Juvenile 
Justice, the National Institute of Justice (U.S. Department of 
Justice), and the Florida Department of Juvenile Justice 
conclude that youth transferred to adult court and tried as 
adults are more likely to: (a) commit a greater number of 
crimes upon release; (b) commit violent crimes upon release; 
and (c) commit crimes sooner upon release.\19\ Miami Herald 
study of the Florida experience in 2001 concluded that 
``[s]ending a juvenile to prison increased by 35 percent the 
odds he'll re-offend within a year of release.'' \20\ Thus, 
locking youth in adult prisons actually compromises public 
safety.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \18\ Representative Scott offered an amendment ordering the 
Director of the Office of Justice Programs to carry out a study of 
evidence-based approaches that have proven to prevent crime. 
Prosecuting young people as adults does not reduce youth crime and it 
is necessary for an agency to further examine this point and to 
determine the mechanisms that do in fact reduce crime. However, this 
amendment was defeated.
    \19\ See e.g. Lanza-Kaduce, Lonn, Charles E. Frazier, Jodi Lane & 
Donna Bishop, Juvenile Transfers to Criminal Court Study: Final Report 
(Florida Department of Juvenile Justice, Office of Juvenile Justice and 
Delinquency Prevention (2002); Green, Ronnie & Geoff Dougherty, ``Kids 
in Prison: Tried as Adults, They Find Trouble Instead of 
Rehabilitation,'' Miami Herald, March 18, 2001; Fagan, Jeffrey, The 
Comparative Impacts of Juvenile and Criminal Court Sanctions on 
Adolescent Felony Offenders (National Institute of Justice, U.S. 
Department of Justice) (1991); Mayers, David L., Adult Crime, Adult 
Time; Punishing Violent Youth in the Adult Criminal Justice System 
(Saga Publications, 2003); Podkopacz, Marcy R. & Barry Feld, ``The End 
of the Line: An Empirical Study of Judicial Waiver,'' 86 Journal of 
Criminal Law & Criminology 449 (1996); Coalition for Juvenile Justice, 
Childhood on Trial: The Failure of Trying and Sentencing Youth in Adult 
Courts (2005).
    \20\ Green, Ronnie & Geoff Dougherty, ``Kids in Prison: Tried as 
Adults, They Find Trouble Instead of Rehabilitation,'' Miami Herald, 
March 18, 2001.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Second, juveniles incarcerated in adult prisons are also at 
greater risk of sexual and physical assaults. Studies 
demonstrate that such youth are five times as likely to report 
being a victim of rape, twice as likely to be beaten by staff, 
and 50% more likely to be assaulted with a weapon than youth in 
juvenile facilities, and are eight times more likely to commit 
suicide. \21\ Moreover, policies that increase the transfer of 
juveniles to adult court also have a disproportionate impact on 
children of color. Recent studies demonstrate that eight out of 
every ten youth admitted to adult facilities across the country 
were youth of color, and minority youth are more likely to be 
treated as adults than white youth charged with the same 
offenses. \22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \21\ See e.g. Audi, Tamara, ``Prison at 14: Teenage Girls Serve 
Time with Adult Inmates,'' Detroit Free Press, July 10, 2000; Forst, 
Martin, Jeffrey Fagan & T. Scott Vivona, ``Youth in Prisons and 
Training Schools: Perceptions and Consequences of the Treatment-Custody 
Dichotomy,'' 40 Juvenile & Family Court Journal (1989).
    \22\ See e.g. Poe-Yamagata, E., and Justice for Some (National 
Council on Crime and Delinquency, 2000); see also The Coalition for 
Juvenile Justice, Childhood on Trial: The Failure of Trying and 
Sentencing Youth in Adult Criminal Court (revealing that over 250,000 
youth are charged as adults every year and roughly 82% of youths tried 
as adults are youth of color).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Third, H.R. 1279 inexcusably removes judicial review of a 
prosecutor's decision to try a youth as an adult. \23\ Current 
law requires an in-depth review of multiple considerations by a 
federal judge of whether such a transfer is in the interest of 
justice. This policy is unwise and will increase federal 
prosecution of youth for minor offenses. Presently, in both 
federal and state courts, juveniles who commit the most serious 
violent crimes are almost certain to be transferred to adult 
court through use of a judicial waiver. In effecting transfer 
to adult court, judicial waivers, as opposed to legislative or 
prosecutorial waivers, are the most common type of waiver 
device used. That is, the juvenile court judge decides whether 
or not to waive jurisdiction to adult court. However, Section 
115 of H.R. 1279 takes the waiver decision out of the judge's 
discretion. \24\ As the Judicial Conference of the United 
States points out, Section 115 ``could result in the federal 
prosecution of juveniles for myriad offenses * * *'' \25\ 
Equally alarming, the legislation removes the current 
prerequisite that the transferred child have a prior conviction 
for an offense, that would be a serious violent felony if 
committed by an adult. Thus, a prosecutor could unilaterally 
decide to transfer a youthful offender with no prior criminal 
record who commits a simple drug trafficking offense, with no 
judicial review of whether such transfer serves the interests 
of justice. Moreover, a move toward federal prosecution causes 
us great concern because as the Judicial Conference 
acknowledges, ``juvenile offenders require different and 
perhaps more extensive correctional and rehabilitative programs 
than adults and * * * there is not a single, federal 
correctional facility to meet these needs.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \23\ In fact, the bill provides no exception to non-reviewability 
for jurisdictional issues such as non-age--a fifteen-year-old 
mistakenly identified as being older--or for young people who may not 
be competent to stand trial as an adult, a high risk scenario as many 
who engage in risky behaviors have mental health problems.
    \24\ Since juveniles can already be tried as adults for serious 
violent crimes, the only purpose of this legislation is to try more 
youth as adults for less serious crimes. Moreover, the legislation also 
allows any other offenses committed that are not covered by the bill to 
be tried as adult offenses, including lesser included offenses, thus 
putting some perhaps trivial charges in federal district courts as 
well.
    \25\ Letter from Leonidas Ralph Mecham, Secretary, Judicial 
Conference of the United States to the Honorable Howard Coble, dated 
April 1, 2005.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    H.R. 1279 simply takes the wrong approach. Instead of 
focusing on correctional and rehabilitative programs, it 
attempts to throw more youth in crowded adult prisons where 
these programs are lacking. \26\ H.R. 1279 reflects the 
politics of crime where you come up with a good slogan such as 
``the gang busters'' bill and codify it. Until H.R. 1279, the 
Judiciary Committee had made great progress toward putting 
aside the politics of crime in favor of sound policy in the 
area of juvenile justice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \26\ The adult prison system is approaching full capacity. For 
example, the nation's prisons and jails held 2.1 million people in mid-
2004, 2.3 percent more than the year before. See ``Nation's Inmate 
Population Increased 2.3 Percent Last Year,'' The New York Times, 4/25/
05.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The last three Chairmen of the Subcommittee on Crime and 
the last two Chairmen of the Subcommittee on Children Youth and 
Families of the Education and Workforce Committee, worked on a 
bipartisan basis with Ranking Member Scott, a member of both 
subcommittees, tocoauthor juvenile crime prevention and 
intervention bills in both subcommittees which all the members of both, 
respectively, cosponsored. These bills were based on the advice of 
juvenile judges, administrators, researchers, advocates and even law 
enforcement officials representing the entire political spectrum. We 
held hearings where a number of witnesses were called by the majority 
and a number by the minority. They all said the same thing: the best 
way to prevent juvenile crime, and ultimately, adult crime, is through 
prevention and early intervention programs geared toward at-risk youth.
    Moreover, following the Columbine school shooting incident, 
the Speaker of the House and the Minority Leader appointed a 
bi-partisan task force on youth crime consisting of 12 
Republicans and 12 Democrats. We met for six weeks with each 
member having the right to call witnesses to tell us how to 
address youth crime and violence. They all said the same thing: 
through prevention and early intervention and treatment, or 
graduated sanctions, programs run by local law enforcement, 
private community based organizations and court personnel. Not 
one said through treating more kids as adults or through 
mandatory minimum sentences. The two bipartisan bills 
incorporated this advice and passed both the House and the 
Senate virtually unanimously. Unfortunately, these universally 
agreed upon crime prevention and early intervention approaches 
were never funded at their modest authorization levels, and 
even worse, have been cut by more than one-half compared to 
what the funding levels were for prevention and intervention 
programs when the bills were initially passed.
    While there is no question that violent and dangerous youth 
need to be securely confined for our safety and theirs, 
incarcerating youth with more sophisticated adult prisoners 
renders them vulnerable to attack and more damaged when they 
return to society. This is tantamount to giving up on them--
something we should never do. Recent data show a stark 
reduction in the rate and seriousness of juvenile delinquency 
in the past nine or ten years. Indeed, as we have learned more 
from the developmental and brain research in recent years, we 
know that rehabilitative programs work better in turning around 
these young lives and correcting their behavior.\27\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \27\ A report released last year by Fight Crime: Invest in Kids, a 
law enforcement-based group, points to the effectiveness of many 
current programs in preventing gangs--at the local and state level--and 
in interdicting violent gang activity. That report, Caught in the 
Crossfire: Arresting Gang Violence by Investing in Kids, offers much 
useful advice about programs that work with the help of federal 
investment in anti-gang programs through the JJDPA and other entities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In our view, another preferable approach to youth crime 
would be to emphasize effective correctional and rehabilitative 
programs such as Head Start and Job Corps. Job Corps programs 
deter crime: about 75% of Job Corps participants move on to a 
job or full-time study; they earn about 15% more than those who 
do not participate in the program; and, not surprisingly, Job 
Corps participants are about one-third less likely to be 
arrested than non-participants. As the Head Start program 
demonstrates, early childhood education and job training 
programs not only reduce crime, they save money. Studies of the 
Head Start program, for example, estimate that about $3 is 
saved for every $1 spent on the program by reducing future 
costs of remedial education, welfare, and crime. Moreover, 
research demonstrates the effectiveness of focused family 
interventions such as:
    
 Multi-Systemic Therapy (MST)--Chronic juvenile 
offenders who graduated from intensive family multisystemic 
therapy (MST) were one-third as likely to be re-arrested within 
four years (22%) as the graduates of individual therapy (71%);
    
 Functional Family Therapy--Youths whose families 
received family therapy (FFT) were half as likely to be 
rearrested as the youths whose families did not receive family 
therapy (26 percent vs. 50 percent); and
    
 Multidimensional Treatment Foster Care--The boys 
randomly assigned to treatment foster care averaged half as 
many new arrests as the boys placed in group-homes (2.6 arrests 
vs. 5.4 arrests). And six times as many boys in treatment 
foster care as boys in the group homes had successfully avoided 
any new arrests (41 percent vs. 7 percent).

II. Legislation Imposes Ineffective and Discriminatory Mandatory 
        Minimums

    H.R. 1279's heavy reliance on mandatory minimums is a 
flawed approach because mandatory minimums distort the 
sentencing process, discriminate against minorities in their 
application, and waste money.\28\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \28\ H.R. 1279 misdirects its attention to mandatory minimums and 
enhanced penalties instead of addressing the real need to prevent gang 
members from obtaining guns. In this regard, Representatives Conyers 
and Van Hollen offered an amendment to close a current loophole that 
exists in the federal gun laws. The amendment would have made it 
illegal to transfer a firearm to anyone that the Federal Government has 
designated as a suspected or known gang member or terrorist. 
Unfortunately, the amendment was defeated.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Mandatory minimum penalties have been studied extensively. 
The Judicial Conference of the United States and the U.S. 
Sentencing Commission have found that mandatory minimums 
distort the sentencing process and have the ``opposite of their 
intended effect.'' \29\ Mandatory minimums ``destroy honesty in 
sentencing by encouraging charge and fact plea bargains.'' 
Moreover, mandatory minimums result in unwarranted sentencing 
disparity. That is, ``mandatory minimums * * * treat dissimilar 
offenders in a similar manner, although those offenders can be 
quite different with respect to the seriousness of their 
conduct or their danger to society * * *'' and * * * ``require 
the sentencing court to impose the same sentence on offenders 
when sound policy and common sense call for reasonable 
differences in punishment.'' \30\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \29\ See U.S. Sentencing Commission, Special Report to Congress: 
Mandatory Minimum Penalties in the Federal Criminal Justice System 
(August 1991).
    \30\ Ibid.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In addition, mandatory minimums tend to discriminate 
against minorities. Both the Judicial Center in its study 
report entitled ``The General Effects of Mandatory Minimum 
Prison Terms: a Longitudinal Study of Federal Sentences 
Imposed'' and the United States Sentencing Commission in its 
study entitled ``Mandatory Minimum Penalties in the Federal 
Criminal JusticeSystem'' found that minorities were 
substantially more likely than whites under comparable circumstances to 
receive mandatory minimum sentences. The Sentencing Commission study 
also reflected that mandatory minimum sentences increased the disparity 
in sentencing of like offenders with no evidence that mandatory minimum 
sentences had any more crime-reduction impact than discretionary 
sentences.
    Finally, mandatory minimums are extremely costly because 
they keep minor role offenders locked up longer than necessary 
while the worst offenders get no more time than they would have 
received under a discretionary sentencing system.\31\ In 
response to an inquiry by Ranking Member Scott's office, the 
U.S. Sentencing Commission estimated the potential prison 
impact of H.R. 1279 to require an additional 23,600 prison beds 
over the next 10 years. At $75,000 per cell, that amounts to 
prison construction costs of almost $2 billion. At a cost of 
$30,000 per inmate for annual upkeep, that amounts to an 
additional $700 million per year and over $7 billion dollars 
over a ten-year period. That is an additional $9 billion over 
and above the billions of dollars per year resulting from 
Congress' seemingly insatiable penchant for mandatory minimum 
sentences, with far less crime reduction value than much 
cheaper, proven approaches.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \31\ The cost issue was born out dramatically in a Rand Commission 
study report entitled ``Mandatory Drug Sentences: Throwing Away the Key 
or the Taxpayers Money?'' The study showed that mandatory minimum 
sentences were far less effective than either discretionary sentences 
or drug treatment in reducing drug-related crime and, thus, far more 
costly than either. For example, the study found that the results of 
spending a million dollars to impose federal mandatory minimum 
sentences for those arrested for drug dealing would reduce cocaine use 
by almost 13 kilograms. If, however, the money was used to arrest, 
confiscate the assets of, prosecute, and incarcerate dealers with 
prison terms under conventional sentencing schemes where judges could 
determine the sentences based on the seriousness of the offense and the 
offender's background, more offenders could be incarcerated and cocaine 
consumption would be reduced by over 27 kilograms.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. The Legislation Unjustifiably Expands the Federal Death Penalty

    H.R. 1279 would create new death penalty provisions at a 
time when evidence continues to expose the fallibility of the 
system and its discriminatory effects.\32\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \32\ Representative Scott offered an amendment that would have 
deleted the death penalty from H.R. 1279. Numerous studies have pointed 
to a high number of wrongful convictions under the death penalty and to 
the racial and geographical disparities associated with the death 
penalty. The amendment was rejected. Another amendment offered by 
Representative Scott would have required a showing of an 
``intentional'' death before a gang member was exposed to the death 
penalty. The amendment would have prevented a gang member from going to 
jail for life for an accidental death, but the amendment was rejected.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    H.R. 1279 authorizes the death penalty for numerous 
offenses if ``death results'' in six different sections.\33\ 
Numerous studies, including those conducted by the ACLU and the 
University of Michigan among others, have documented the 
exposure of innocent individuals to the death penalty 
system.\34\ Last year, a University of Michigan study 
identified 199 murder exonerations since 1989, 73 of them in 
capital cases. The same study found that death row inmates 
represent a quarter of 1 percent of the prison population but 
22 percent of the exonerated. Since 1973, 119 innocent people 
have been released from death row. An earlier study found that 
more than two out of every three capital judgments reviewed by 
the courts during a 23-year period were seriously flawed. 
Moreover, experts reviewed all the capital cases and appeals 
imposed in the United States between 1973 and 1995 at the state 
and federal levels. They found a national error rate of 68%. In 
other words, over two-thirds of all capital convictions and 
sentences are reversed because of serious error during trial or 
sentencing. This does not include errors that were not serious 
enough to warrant a reversal.\35\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \33\ See Sections 101 (gang crime resulting in death), 102 (``crime 
of violence'' ``to further'' unlawful activity if death results), 104 
(travel or use of interstate facilities with intent that ``crime of 
violence'' be committed if results in death), 105 (death for ``crime of 
violence'' if results in death), 106 (``crime of violence during and in 
relation to a drug trafficking crime'' if results in death), and 107 
(intent that 2 or more homicides be committed if results in death).
    \34\ See American Bar Association, ``Gideon's Broken Promise: 
America's Continuing Quest for Equal Justice'' (2005) (demonstrating 
that innocent people are wrongfully convicted in our criminal justice 
system due to the lack of effective defense representation for the 
poor). In fact, Governor Ryan of Illinois declared a moratorium in his 
state after 13 people were released from death row because of 
innocence. Ryan wanted assurances that the system was working before 
resuming executions. Some death penalty proponents have argued that the 
problems in Illinois are exceptional. In fact, however the error rate 
in Illinois is 66%, slightly lower than the national average of 68%.
    \35\ See ``A Broken System: Error Rates in Capital Cases'', 1973-
1995 (Retrieved April 26, 2005 from http://justice.policy.net/jpreport/
).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In fact, due in part to the high number of wrongful 
convictions with respect to the death penalty, Congress passed 
the Justice for All Act of 2004,\36\ which received strong 
bipartisan support. The Act increases federal resources 
available to state and local governments to combat crimes with 
DNA technology, and provides safeguards to prevent wrongful 
convictions and executions. Title III of the bill, the 
Innocence Protection Act, provides access to post-conviction 
DNA testing in federal cases, helps States improve the quality 
of legal representation in capital cases, and increases 
compensation in Federal cases of wrongful conviction. By 
increasing the number of federal death penalty provisions, H.R. 
1279 runs counter to the spirit of the Innocence Protection Act 
and would actually prevent the IPA from achieving its full 
purpose. Even worse, these new death penalties are being 
proposed at a time when the Innocence Protection Act has not 
even been funded.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \36\ Pub. L. No. 108-405, s. 401-432 (2004).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Furthermore, the death penalty has been shown to be 
racially and economically discriminatory.\37\ Studies which 
examine the relationship between race and the death penalty 
have now been conducted in every active death penalty state. In 
96% of these reviews, there was a pattern of either race-of-
victim or race-of-defendant discrimination, or both. After its 
careful study of the death penalty in the United States, the 
United Nations' Human Rights Commission in 1998 issued a report 
which rightly concludes: ``Race, ethnic origin and economic 
status appear to be key determinants of who will, and who will 
not, receive a sentence of death.'' \38\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \37\ See Department of Justice Report, ``The Federal Death Penalty 
System: A Statistical Survey'' (1988-2000) (finding numerous racial and 
geographic disparities in the death penalty and revealing that 80% of 
the cases submitted by federal prosecutors for death penalty review in 
the past five years have involved racial minorities as defendants); see 
also University of Maryland Report, ``An Empirical Analysis of 
Maryland's Death Sentencing System With Respect to the Influence of 
Race and Legal Jurisdiction'' (concluding that defendants are much more 
likely to be sentenced to death if they have killed a caucasian).
    \38\ Report of the Special Rapporteur on Extrajudicial, Summary, or 
Arbitrary Executions, Mission to the United States of America, U.N. 
ESCOR, Hum. Rts. Comm., 54th Sess., Agenda Item 10, P 62, U.N. Doc. E/
CN.4/1998/68/Add.3 (1998).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Finally, Section 110 of H.R. 1279 would expand venue in 
capital cases, to make any location even tangentially related 
to the crime a possible site for the trial. This change in law 
will increase the inequities that already exist in the federal 
death penalty system, giving prosecutors tremendous discretion 
to ``forum shop'' for the most death-friendly jurisdiction in 
which to try their case. The bill would allow the government to 
bring the death penalty to states whose citizens have rejected 
it, even if the offense was not committed there. It would 
violate both the defendant's rights and states' rights to 
accept or reject capital punishment.
    Article III of the Constitution requires that the ``[t]rial 
of all Crimes * * * shall be held in the State where the said 
Crimes shall have been committed.'' \39\ This is reinforced by 
the Sixth Amendment, which guarantees the accused a trial ``by 
an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime 
shall have been committed.; which district shall have been 
previously ascertained by law.'' \40\ Venue is constitutional 
only in the district where the acts constituting the charged 
offense were committed, not in any district where activities 
involved in the ``offense, or related conduct * * * occurred.'' 
\41\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \39\ U.S. Const. Art III, Sec. 2, cl.3.
    \40\ U.S. Const. Amend. VI.
    \41\ See United States v. Cabrales, 524 U.S. 1,6-10 (1998) (venue 
for money laundering offenses was in the district where the money was 
laundered, not in the district where the money was illegally produced); 
United States v. Salinas, 373 F.3d 161, 163-170 (1st Cir. 2004) (venue 
for passport fraud was in the district where the defendant made the 
knowingly false statement, not where the application was processed).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Legislation is Not Necessary

    H.R. 1279 is simply not needed because federal prosecutors 
are already armed with the RICO and CCE statutes to prosecute 
actual gang crimes. In spite of its name and origin, RICO is 
not limited to ``mobsters'' or members of ``organized crime'' 
as those terms are popularly understood. Rather it covers those 
activities which Congress felt characterized the conduct of 
organized crime no matter who actually engages in them. In 
fact, courts have frequently upheld prosecutions under RICO for 
criminal gang activity.\42\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \42\ See United States v. Coonan, 938 F.2d 1553 (2d Cir. 1991) 
(affirming RICO conviction of members of the Westies gang); see also 
United States v. Espinoza, 52 Fed. Appx. 846 (7th Cir. 2003) (affirming 
RICO conviction of member of QC Bishops street gang).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Gangs were being prosecuted under RICO as early as the mid-
1980s and by the early 1990s, the CCE statue was also being 
used against gangs engaged in drug trafficking.\43\ As one 
recent commentator noted, ``there is a national trend in 
fighting gang-related crime using the RICO statutes, and these 
efforts have been very successful . . . RICO may be used to 
target the managing forces of the gang, as well as its 
underlings.'' \44\ Thus, if the point of the bill is to provide 
a greater role for federal law enforcement to combat gang 
violence, such a role already exists.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \43\ David R. Truman, The Jets And Sharks Are Dead: State Statutory 
Responses To Criminal Street Gangs, 73 Wash. U. L.Q. 683 (1995).
    \44\ Janice A. Petrella, Equal Protection--What Is In A Name? Sign? 
Symbol? Gang Members and RICO Considered, 34 Rutgers L.J. 1237 (2003).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

V. The Legislation is a Questionable Exercise of the Commerce Clause 
        Power

    H.R. 1279 is so intrusive that if enacted into law, it may 
well be found inconsistent with recent Supreme Court decisions 
interpreting the Congressional power to legislate under the 
Commerce Clause. The Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution 
provides that Congress shall have the power to regulate 
interstate and foreign commerce.\45\ H.R. 1279 violates the 
Commerce Clause because it ``completely obliterate[s] the 
Constitution's distinction between national and local 
authority.'' \46\ The legislation unconstitutionally reaches 
``gang activity'' which does not have the requisite 
``substantial affect'' on commerce.\47\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \45\ See U.S. Constitution, Art. I, s.8, cl. 3.
    \46\ U.S. v. Morrison, 529 U.S. 598 (2000).
    \47\ U.S. v. Lopez, 514 U.S. 549 (1995).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Five years ago in United States v. Morrison, the Court 
invalidated portions of the Violence Against Women Act, stating 
that Congress had overstepped its specific constitutional power 
to regulate interstate commerce.\48\ Despite vast quantities of 
data illustrating the effects that violence against women has 
on interstate commerce, the Court essentially warned Congress 
not to extend its constitutional authority in order to, 
``completely obliterate the Constitution's distinction between 
national and local authority.'' The same concerns were brought 
in United States v. Lopez, which invalidated a federal law 
criminalizing the possession of firearms in a school zone. In 
that case, the Supreme Court cautioned Congress regarding its 
limited authority in matters traditionally left to the states, 
Congress's authority is not as broad.\49\ This would be 
particularly true concerning H.R. 1279 which makes federal 
crimes of a host of traditional state offenses.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \48\ 529 U.S. 598 (2000).
    \49\ 514 U.S. 549 (1995).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In both Lopez and Morrison, the Supreme Court also held 
that federal statutes that attempt to regulate intrastate 
activities are unconstitutional unless the conduct 
``substantially affects'' commerce. For H.R. 1279 to avoid a 
constitutional problem under these cases would require that the 
criminal street gang itself be an economic enterprise, or at 
least that its activities ``substantially'' affect commerce. 
The effect of the new street gang offenses proposed by H.R. 
1279 on interstate commerce is, like violence against women and 
gun possession in a school zone, too attenuated. Otherwise, 
virtually all local activity that could be characterized as 
``gang activity'' would be federalized, upsetting the federal-
state balance in criminal prosecution. The effect of gang 
activities would unlikely meet the ``substantially affected'' 
threshold under the Supreme Court rulings.

                               CONCLUSION

    While there is no question that violent and dangerous youth 
need to be securely confined for our safety and theirs, the 
emphasis of H.R. 1279 on the death penalty and mandatory 
minimums is misplaced. Mandatory minimum sentences have been 
studied extensively and have been proven to be ineffective in 
preventing crime; proven to distort the sentencing process; and 
proven to be a considerable waste of taxpayers money. Moreover, 
the death penalty system has numerous deficiencies, not to 
mention its discriminatory effects. The bill also unwisely 
advocates for transferring a greater number of juveniles to 
adult court to be tried for youth-related crimes. This runs 
contrary to research which indicates that prosecuting young 
people as adults does not reduce youth crime. In fact, it's 
been proven to have the opposite effect.
    In the alternative, we should emphasize prevention programs 
which discourage youth from joining gangs. Research indicates 
the effectiveness of focused family interventions, including 
functional family therapy. Youth whose families received family 
therapy, for example, were half as likely to be re-arrested as 
the youths whose families did not receive family therapy. 
Unfortunately, instead of investing in commonsense programs 
such as this, H.R. 1279 adopts a ``lock 'em up and throw away 
the key'' strategy to deal with the problem.
                                   John Conyers, Jr.
                                   Robert Scott.
                                   Zoe Lofgren.
                                   Maxine Waters.
                                   William D. Delahunt.
                                   Anthony D. Weiner.
                                   Linda T. Sanchez.
                                   Chris Van Hollen.
                                   Howard L. Berman.
                                   Jerrold Nadler.
                                   Melvin L. Watt.
                                   Sheila Jackson Lee.
                                   Martin Meehan.